y^ 


^ 

\) 


1 


-.f^ 


> 


ili  '*.'  iK  i«i  ikC  i!i  i"i  ifc.'  i<i  '^  '»i  ^^4  iK '»''  "^'i  Hi  ^K  "^"i  Nii  '^•i  ""i  '^'i  i!4«  '^  Mi  ^  iSi  ^^ 
7f. .^. ?K  JK ?K ?r? TK ;s\ ?K 7K .W. 7r?  ■*. ;^. ?K .'5K T^. ?»=•. ?K ?1<; 5-. J. 7^. 7K?i^. 7K ^ ^ ?!?. ?K 'K 

;n>  BEIiOIVOI  IVI«  Q 

Vi  ••  TO    THE  '^^      I 

yd.  ^< 

>K  '■% 

?S.  OP  "• 

^  •^ 

k  :s<  I 

^  M<  i 

>K  »: 

m  :*:  ' 

sc  .,     .  ^ 

I  '^  lAorartan.  ^ 

vy  •vu'  v!i  "^^  "^  Mi  i'l-i  'iH  'iH  V'i  "nc  y£  yi  V'i  ^  vi  y<  iii  i'i  "j'i  i'-i  i'i  '^.  y^*  i'i  iK  isi  vi  if  A'i 


UCSB    LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 
in  2007  witlilunding  from 
IVIicrosoft  Corporation  ~ 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/argumentsofcounsOOwoodiala 


THE 

ARGUMENTS  OF  THE  COUNSEL 

or 

JOSEPH  HENDRICKSON, 

IN   A.  CAUSS 

DECIDED  IN  THE  COURT  OF  CHANCERY  OF  THE  STATE 
OF   NEW  JERSEY, 

BETWEEN 

THOMAS  L.  SHOTWELL,  COMPLAINANT, 

AND  JOSEPH  HENDRICKSON  AND  STACY  DECOW,    DEFENDANTS. 


BY  GEORGE  WOOD  AND  ISAAC  H.  WILLIAMSON, 
Counsellors  at  Law. 


TO   WHICH   IS   APPENDED, 

THE  DECISION  OF  TBE  COURT. 

ALSO, 

THE  OPINION  OF  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE 
OF  NEW  YORK, 

IN  A  CAUSE  IN  WHICH  JAMES  FIELD  WAS  PLAINTIFF.  AND  CHARLES 
FIELD  DEFENDANT. 


3lhtlalfel|rfifa; 

FOR  SALE  BY  URIAH  HUNT,  No.  19  NORTH  THIRD  STREET, 

AND 

MAHLON  DAY,  AND  S.  WOOD  k.  SONS,  NEW  YORK. 

1833. 


DCP  In  presenting  a  second  edition  of  this  work  to  the 
public,  the  Editor  feels  much  regret  at  being  unable  to  gra- 
tify public  expectation,  in  giving  a  more  complete  view  of 
this  interesting  question,  by  the  publication  of  the  argu- 
ments on  the  other  side,  or  at  least  the  brilliant  effort  of  the 
Hon.  S.  L.  Southard,  in  behalf  of  Decow.  It  is  no  morfe 
than  justice  to  all  parties  to  state,  that  those  who  take  the 
opposite  side  of  the  question,  were  not  only  willing,  but  anx- 
ious to  accede  to  his  wishes  in  this  respect ;  but  their  coun- 
sel not  deeming  it  expedient  to  do  so,  the  copy  could  not 
be  procured. 

Philad.  April  1,  1833. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  by  P.  J.  Grat,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of 
the  District  of  New  Jersey. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  case  which  is  here  reported,  has  excited  a  deep 
and  lively  interest  among  an  extensive  portion  of  the 
community,  and  the  Editor  has  been  induced  to  prepare 
this  publication  in  order  to  gratify  the  curiosity  which  has 
been  raised.  He  deems  it  proper  to  make  a  short  pre- 
liminary statement  of  the  case. 

Many  years  ago  a  subscription  was  got  up,  within  the 
precincts  of  the  Preparative  Meeting  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  in  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  a  fund,  to  establish  a  school  for  the 
education  of  the  children  of  the  indigent  members  of  that 
meeting.  Members  subscribed,  and  a  fund  was  raised, 
and  placed  under  the  control  and  direction  of  the  prepar- 
ative meeting,  which  appointed  a  treasurer  to  take  charge 
of  the  school  fund. 

The  plan  originated  in  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Phila- 
delphia, to  which  this  meeting  at  Crosswicks  was  attach- 
ed, and  under  their  auspices  similar  funds,  for  the  like 
purposes,  were  raised  in  other  preparative  meetings  be- 
longing to  their  jurisdiction. 

The  religious  dissension  which  has  arisen  in  the  Soci- 
ety of  Friends,  and  in  which  Elias  Hicks  has  performed 
so  conspicuous  a  part,  need  not  here  be  particularly  de- 
tailed. After  the  dispute  had  raged  for  /some  time,  the 
party  to  which  Elias  Hicks  was  attached,  usually  dqnorT^' 


inated  "  Hicksites,"  and  the  opposite  party,  usually  called 
the  "  Orthodox,"  became  completely  estabUshed.  They 
were  absolutely  detached  from  each  other,  in  most  places, 
so  as  to  form  separate  meetings,  and  this  was  the  case  at 
Crosswicks,  as  well  as  at  all  the  other  meetings  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  had  been  appointed  the  treasurer 
of  this  school  fund,  by  the  preparative  meeting  at  Cross- 
wicks, before  this  controversy  arose,  and  in  his  capacity 
of  treasurer,  had  loaned  out  a  portion  of  the  money  on 
interest,  to  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  who  was  not  a  member 
of  the  Society  of  Friends ;  who  gave  him  the  bond  and 
mortgage,  upon  which  this  suit  is  brought.  When  these 
parties  became  completely  divided,  and  formed  two  sepa- 
rate preparative  meetings  at  Crosswicks,  the  "  Hicksite" 
preparative  meeting  appointed  Stacy  Decow  the  treasurer 
of  this  school  fund.  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  who  had  be- 
come attached  to  that  party,  refused  to  recognize  Joseph 
Hendrickson,  who  adhered  to  the  *•  Orthodox,"  as  the 
lawful  treasurer  any  longer.  Under  the  direction  of  the 
preparative  meeting  held  by  the  "  Orthodox,"  and  claim^ 
ed  by  them  to  be  the  true  preparative  meeting  of  the  So- 
ciety of  Friends,  Joseph  Hendrickson  as  their  treasurer, 
demanded  of  Thomas  L.  Shotwell  the  payment  of  the  in- 
terest due  upon  his  bond  and  mortgage,  which  he  refused 
to  pay  him,  disclaiming  his  right  to  receive  it. 

Upon  this  refusal,  Joseph  Hendrickson  exhibited  a  bill 
of  complaint  in  the  usual  form,  in  the  Court  of  Chancery 
of  New  Jersey,  against  Shotwell,  to  foreclose  his  bond 
and  mortgage ;  and  in  his  bill,  he  set  forth  the  pretension 
on  the  part  of  Shotwell,  that  Stacy  Decow  was  the  law- 
ful treasurer  of  the  school  fund.  And  for  the  purpose  of 
rebutting  this  pretension,  he  set  forth  particularly  the  re- 
ligious controversy  in  this  Society  above  alluded  to ;  their 
division  into  two  parties ;  and  alleged  that  the  ground  of 


this  division  was  on  account  of  religious  doctrines.    He 
stated,  that  there  were  three  prominent  points  of  doctrine 
on  which  they  differed;    that  the  ancient  Society  of 
Friends  believed  in  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour,  the  atone- 
ment, and  in  the  inspiration  and  unerring  truth  and  cer- 
tainty of  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  tenets  were  still  held 
by  the  "  Orthodox"  party,  and  are,  and  always  have  been 
deemed  fundamental :  but  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  re- 
jected these  doctrines.     He   further   charged,  that  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  had  seceded  from  the  institutions  and 
government  of  the  church ;  that  during  the  sitting  of  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia,  in  1827,  the  members 
composing  the  "Hicksite"  party  held  private  irregular 
meetings,  which  resulted  in  the  issuing,  by  them,  of  an 
address  directed  to  their  own  party,  calling  a  convention 
for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  yearly  meeting  of  their  own; 
that  this  convention,  composed  of  their  own  party,  met 
accordingly,  and  did  form  a  new  yearly  meeting,  which 
was  first  held  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  Monday  in 
April,  1828,  and  has  continued  since  to  be  held  annually, 
on  the  same  day  of  the  month.     He  also  stated,  that  the 
old  yearly  meeting,  at  their  sitting  in  1827,  was  regularly 
adjourned  to  meet  the  ensuing  year,  at  Philadelphia,  on 
the  third  Monday  in  April,  agreeably  to  the  established 
rules  of  the  Society ;  that  they  did  so  meet  the  following 
year,  and  have  continued  annually  to  assemble  at  that 
time  and  place  ever  since.     And  he  charged,  that  the 
"  Hicksite"  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  was  de- 
tached from  the  old  preparative  meeting,  and  was  con- 
nected with,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  new  "  Hicksite'* 
Yearly  Meeting  of  Philadelphia.     He  alleged  that  these 
proceedings  amounted  to  a  secession  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  and  that,  as  such  seceders,  they  were 
not  identified  with   the  old  institutions,  and  could  not 
carry  the  property  with  them,    Upon  the  filing  of  this 


VI 

bill,  Thomas  L.  Shotwell  came  into  court,  and  exhibited 
a  bill  of  interpleader  against  Joseph  Hendrickson  and 
Stacy  Decow,  the  two  adverse  treasurers,  in  which  he 
set  forth  their  respective  claims  and  pretensions.  Joseph 
Hendrickson  filed  an  answer,  in  which  he  reiterated  and 
insisted  upon  the  various  grounds  charged  in  his  original 
bill. 

Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer  to  this  bill  of  interpleader, 
denied  that  the  three  religious  doctrines  already  stated, 
were  fundamental  doctrines  with  the  Society  of  Friends. 
On  the  contrary,  he  said  they  had  no  creed,  and  every  in- 
dividual member  might  believe,  in  regard  to  them,  as  he 
pleased.  He  refused  to  disclose  his  religious  sentiments 
or  those  of  his  party,  alleging  that  he  was  not  bound  to 
to  disclose  them  before  a  temporal  tribunal.  He  con- 
tended that  the  religious  Society  of  Friends  was  a  pure 
democracy,  acknowledging  no  head  but  Christ,  the  Great 
Head  of  the  christian  church,  and  that  they  did  not  consider 
Elias  Hicks  as  their  leader.  That,  believing  in  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  divine  light  upon 
the  soul,  they  held  no  inquisition  over  the  consciences  of 
their  fellow  men.  He  denied  that  his  party  had  seceded 
from  the  rule  and  government  of  the  church.  He  con- 
tended that  they  had  merely  revived  the  government,  and 
organized  it  anew  upon  its  original  principles,  which  had 
become  necessary,  in  consequence  of  the  erroneous  and 
irregular  proceedings  of  some  members  of  the  opposite 
party,  particularly  certain  elders  in  Philadelphia. 

After  the  pleadings  were  completed,  the  depositions  of 
witnesses  were  taken  at  Camden,  opposite  to  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  before  Jeremiah  J.  Foster,  Esq.  an  Exam- 
iner in  the  Court  of  Chancery,  which,  together  with  the 
pleadings  at  length,  and  some  of  the  exhibits  in  the  cause, 
have  been  published  in  two  volumes. 

The  Chancellor  having  been,  while  at  the  bar,  of  coun- 


Vll 

sel  in  the  cause,  called  into  his  assistance,  agreeably  to 
the  practice  of  the  Court,  the  Chief  Justice  and  one  of 
the  Associate  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  before 
whom  the  cause  was  heard. 

This  volume  may  with  propriety  be  considered  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  work  of  J.  J.  Foster,  Esq.  and  is  so  in- 
tended to  be.  But  inasmuch  as  many  persons  may  wish 
to  procure  this  volume,  without  going  to  the  expense  of 
obtaining  the  depositions,  the  Editor  has  thought  it  ad- 
visable to  give  this  brief  account  of  the  pleadings  and  pre- 
vious proceedings  for  the  benefit  of  the  reader. 

Trenton,  August,  1832. 


ARGUMENTS,  &c. 


—»»«#•<♦*- 


Court  of  Chancery,  of  New  Jersey  ^ 
Trenton,  January  3,  1832. 

This  being  the  day  set  down  by  the  Court,  for  hearing 
the  argument,  and  their  Honors,  Chief  Justice  E  wing,  and 
Associate  Justice  Drake,  of  the  Supreme  Court,  being  pre- 
sent, the  Chancellor  having  been  concerned  as  counsel  in 
the  cause, 

George  Wood,  Esq.,  of  counsel  for  the  plaintiff,  thus 
opened  the  cause : 

The  debt  secured  by  the  bond  and  mortgage  in  question, 
in  this  cause,  is  part  of  a  school  fund,  raised  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  children  of  indigent  members  of  the  Preparative 
Meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends,  or  people  called  Quak- 
ers, at  Crosswicks,  in  the  county  of  Burlington.* 

The  trustees  and  the  treasurer  of  this  school  fund  are  ap- 
pointed by  this  preparative  meeting.  The  whole  fund,  in- 
cluding this  mortgage  debt,  which  is  a  part  of  the  fund,  is 
a  mere  appendage  to  this  preparative  meeting. 

Independently  of  the  pleadings  and  evidence  in  this 
cause,  it  is  well  known  that  there  is  an  unfortunate  con- 
troversy in  this  religious  society.     A  controversy  which 

*  See  the  original  subscription  paper  in  the  Appendix. 
2 


has  spread  discord  throughout  the  whole  church.  It  has 
not  been  confined  in  its  effects  to  mere  religious  matters, 
but  its  baneful  influence  has  infected  all  the  relations  of 
private  life.  Brother  has  been  arrayed  against  brother, 
and  husband  against  wife.  The  bitterness  of  this  dissen- 
tion  has  been  rendered  doubly  severe,  from  the  reflection, 
that  the  members  of  this  church  have  heretofore  been  dis- 
tinguished, without  seeking  distinction  of  any  kind,  for  their 
pacific  disposition  and  friendly  intercourse.  The  last  pro- 
perty in  New  Jersey,  which  any  one,  a  few  years  ago 
would  have  expected  to  see  involved  in  the  heat  of  litiga- 
tion, would  have  been  Quaker  meeting  houses,  and  their 
appendages. 

The  dispute  commenced  about  religious  doctrines.  This 
led  to  a  discussion  in  respect  to  discipline  and  government, 
and  has  eventuated  in  an  absolute  separation  of  the  par- 
ties ;  both  sides  are  respectable  in  regard  to  numbers  and 
character. 

The  religious  world,  from  a  very  early  period,  has  been 
divided  in  sentiment,  respecting  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Those  opposed  to  it,  have  appeared  at  different 
times  and  in  different  forms.  Arianism,  presented  the 
boldest  front  of  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  which  com- 
menced with  Arius,  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Alexan- 
dria, in  the  fourth  century.  Shortly  before  this,  arose  the 
Sabellian  controversy.  The  Socinian  is  of  more  modern 
date;  and  lastly,  we  have  the  Unitarian.  They  have  ap- 
peared with  different  modifications  of  doctrines,  becoming 
more  lax  as  they  recede  in  point  of  time.  They  all  agree, 
however,  in  one  point — in  degrading  the  great  Head  of  the 
Christian  Church,  in  disrobing  Him  of  his  divinity  and 
equality  in  the  Godhead.  They  agree,  also,  in  rejecting 
the  atonement — tliey  also  reduce  the  scriptures  from  a 
work  of  inspiration,  which  is  infallible,  to  a  mere  history, 
liable  to  err,  and  subject  to  allowances  in  interpretation, 
so  as  to  get  clear  of  all  those  passages  in  which  the  divin- 
ity of  the  Saviour  is  fully  and  unequivocally  developed. 

Arianism  spread  at  one  lime  extensively.  Modern  pro- 
testants  are  generally  Trinitarians.  Unitarianism  has 
lately  gained  ground  in  New  England  ;  and  within  a  com- 
paratively short  period,  it  has  invaded  the  peaceful  borders 
of  Quakerism. 

There  are  at  Crosswicks,  two  associations,  oach  claim- 
ing to  be  the  preparative  meeting  in  question.     The  one 


is  attached  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  which 
assembles  on  the  third  Monday  of  the  fourth  month,  or 
April.  The  other,  to  the  yearly  meeting  which  assenri- 
bles  there  on  the  second  Monday  of  that  month.  The  bill 
of  interpleader  was  intended  to  bring  before  the  court,  the 
two  persons,  Hendrickson  and  Shot  well,  each  claiming  to 
be  the  treasurer  of  this  school.  Hendrickson,  my  client, 
being  appointed  by  the  preparative  meeting  commonly 
calle'd  "  Orthodox,"  Shotwell,  by  the  preparative  meeting 
commonly  called  "  Hicksite."  I  use  these  terms,  by  which 
the  two  parties  are  generally  known,  merely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  designation,  and  without  any  view  to  disparage- 
ment. 

The  question  to  be  considered  and  decided,  is,  which  is 
the  true  preparative  meeting  to  which  this  property  be- 
longs.    They  cannot  both  be,  for  it  belongs  to  one. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  Joseph  Hendrickson, 
though  the  obligee  at  law,  holds  the  bond  and  mortgage 
in  equity  as  such  treasurer,  subject  to  the  trust.  Who  is 
truly  the  treasurer?  Which  is  the  true  preparative  meet- 
ing, to  which  this  fund  is  attached?  What  preparative 
meeting  is  it,  whose  indigent  members  are  entitled  to  be 
educated  out  of  this  fund  ? 

We  contend  that  the  preparative  meeting  called  "  Ortho- 
dox," is  the  true  preparative  meeting  identified  with  the 
preparative  meeting  existing  at  Crosswicks,  at  the  time 
this  school  fund  was  raised — that  the  other  is  not  the  true 
preparative  meeting,  and  for  two  reasons — first,  because 
they  have  departed  from  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  this 
religious  society ;  and  secondly,  because  they  have  de- 
parted from  the  discipline,  rule,  and  government  of  this 
church,  and  have  set  up  for  themselves  a  new  and  dis- 
tinct government,  separately  organized. 

Before  I  proceed  to  a  consideration  of  the  doctrines  of 
this  society,  allow  me  to  present  a  few  preliminary  re- 
marks. We  accord  freely  to  the  opposite  party,  the  posi- 
tion, that  every  individual  has  a  right  to  entertain,  and 
openly  to  enjoy  his  own  religious  opinions :  provided,  in 
the  practical  assertion  of  them,  he  does  not  infringe  that 
moral  rule,  as  sanctioned  and  enforced  by  the  municipal 
law.  By  the  act  of  1796,  Paterson's  New  Jersey  laws, 
311,  it  is  a  misdemeanor  to  deny  the  Being  or  Providence 
of  God — contumelious  reproaches  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  the  Scriptures,  are  also  punishable.     The  denial  in  these 


instances,  to  be  punishable,  must  be  of  a  contumelious  char- 
acter ;  the  statute  doctrine  of  blasphemy  being  merely  de- 
claratory of  the  common  law.  Within  the  wide  range 
allowed  by  this  statute,  every  man  can  freely  and  publicly 
enjoy  his  own  opinions. 

But  this  liberty  is  broad  and  general,  not  restrictive  and 
exclusive — Christianity  is  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of 
genuine  rational  liberty.  Wherever  it  goes,  it  carries 
knowledge,  civilization  and  liberty  in  its  train — it  strikes 
the  shackles  from  the  foot  of  the  slave.  But  the  liberty 
for  which  I  contend,  is  liberty  under  the  law,  not  the  pri- 
vilege of  holding  what  may  be  got  in  a  general  scramble]; 
and  the  law  which  protects  this  liberty,  sheds  its  benign 
influence,  not  only  on  individuals,  but  on  religious  societies. 

Christianity  is  a  social  system.  The  christian  individ- 
uated, would  be  a  phenomenon.  Through  the  whole 
course  of  its  history  we  find  it  existing  in  the  shape  of  re- 
ligious societies,  difliering  from  one  another  ;  sometimes  in 
essential  doctrines,  sometimes  in  forms  of  government,  and 
sometimes  in  both.  This  state  of  things,  is  the  combined 
result  of  two  principles — freedom  of  thought,  and  social 
feeling.  The  movements  springing  from  the  application 
of  these  apparently  antagonist  principles,  resemble,  in  some 
measure,  the  harmonious  operations  of  physical  nature. 
These  various  religious  societies,  though  they  differ,  may 
live  harmoniously  together,  but  the  members  of  the  same 
society,  must  agree  in  all  important  particulars,  in  order 
to  preserve  this  concord. 

*'  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them,"  may  be  considered  as 
something  more  than  a  mere  consolatory  declaration.  It 
invokes  an  injunction,  and  exhibits  at  the  same  time,  a  pro- 
phetic view  of  the  christian  state. 

While  the  law  protects  individuals,  it  would  be  short- 
sighted indeed,  not  to  protect  religious  societies  in  their 
social  capacity — in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights,  and  in 
worshipping  in  their  social  meetings  without  disturbance 
or  conflict,  according  to  the  established  views  and  doc- 
trines of  their  founders.  Without  such  fostering  care, 
Christianity,  as  far  as  it  is  dependent  on  human  means, 
would  be  starved  out  of  the  world ;  and  this  protection  is 
beneficial  to  morality  as  well  as  religion. 

In  what  are  religious  societies  to  be  protected  1  In  the 
maintenance  of  their  doctrines — of  their  peculiar  views  of 


the  Deity,  and  of  the  worship  that  belongs  to  Him,  and  iii 
the  organization  of  their  institutions ;  and  as  incidental  to 
these,  they  are  entitled  to  the  preservation  of  the  property 
bestowed  upon  them,  either  directly,  or  through  the  inter- " 
vention  of  trustees,  for  these  great  purposes.  How  are 
they  to  be  protected  in  these  important  particulars  1  By 
guaranteeing  to  them  the  power  of  purgation,  of  lopping 
off  dead  and  useless  branches,  of  clearing  out  those  who 
depart  essentially  from  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  society. — There  is  no  other  mode  of  protec- 
ting a  religious  association.  To  preserve  the  identity  of 
an  institution,  you  must  keep  in  view  the  purpose  for  which 
it  was  formed,  and  its  essential  modes  of  action,  and  you 
must  preserve  them.  If  a  set  of  individuals  within  its  bo- 
som, may  divert  it  to  other  purposes,  its  identity  is  gone 
■ — it  is  no  longer  protected.  Property  bestowed  in  trust 
for  these  purposes,  is  no  longer  protected  in  the  trust. 

The  power  of  bestowing  property  for  such  religious  pur- 
poses, or  in  other  words,  of  creating  such  trust,  is  one  of 
the  most  interesting  rights  which  man  can  exercise  and 
enjoy  in  society.  Man,  says  Edmund  Burke,  is  by  nature, 
a  religious  animal.  His  instinct  as  well  as  reason,  leads 
him  to  the  perception  of  Deity,  and  he  becomes  awfully 
impressed  with  this  idea,  when  bowed  down  by  the  hand 
of  affliction,  or  when  contemplating  the  grand  and  sublime 
operations  of  nature.  When  so  impressed,  from  whatever 
cause,  he  feels  impelled  to  contribute  to  the  propagation 
of  that  religious  devotion,  which  lifts  up  his  nature,  and 
prepares  him  for  higher  and  nobler  destinies.  The  wise 
and  the  good  feel  and  highly  prize  this  as  a  privilege  ;  and 
every  wise  and  good  government  will  be  disposed  to  pro- 
tect the  enjoyment  of  it  when  not  carried  to  superstitious 
lengths ;  deprive  them  of  this  protection,  and  you  so  far 
deprive  them  of  religious  freedom.  The  religious  society 
is  not  protected.  The  individual  entertaining  his  peculiar 
religious  views  as  a  member  of  that  society,  is  not  ppo- 
tected  in  bestowing  his  property  upon  it;  an  Episcopalian, 
a  Presbyterian,  a  Quaker,  may  have  his  property  which 
he  had  bestowed  in  trust  for  these  religious  purposes, 
diverted  to  other  purposes ;  trustees  in  such  cases,  are 
encouraged  to  prove  faithless  to  their  trust. 

The  protection  of  religious  freedom,  in  the  individual 
and  social  capacity,  must  be  so  regulated  that  they  may 
harmonize ;  let  the  individual,  having  been  a  member  of  a 
.      2* 


religious  society,  and  having  changed  his  opinons,  with- 
draw and  enjoy  his  own  opinions  newly  formed ;  but  if 
you  allow  him  to  remain  a  member,  he  is  of  course  mar- 
ring the  rehgious  doctrines  of  the  society,  to  which  he  has 
become  alien  in  feeling  and  in  sentiment ;  let  him,  when 
he  withdraws,  carry  his  own  property  with  him ;  but  if 
he  carries  the  property  of  the  society  along  with  him,  he 
is  encroaching  upon  their  rights. 

There  is  another  preliminary  view  which  I  wish  to 
present  to  the  consideration  of  the  court.  As  before  re- 
marked, Christianity  has  always  been  fostered  and  pro- 
tected through  religious  societies.  Their  property  has 
been  generally  bestowed  upon  them  by  way  of  donation 
by  individuals,  entertaining  the  same  religious  views.  They 
have  been  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  property, 
as  religious  societies,  under  the  law  of  charitable  uses,  in- 
troduced into  the  civil  law  by  Constantino,  when  Christi- 
anity became  the  religion  of  the  Roman  empire. 

An  opinion  has  sometimes  been  entertained,  that  this 
doctrine  of  charitable  uses,  was  introduced  into  England 
by  the  statute  of  forty-third  Elizabeth,  but  this  notion  is 
manifestly  erroneous.  The  protection  of  property,  given 
for  charitable  purposes,  pics  causce,  as  they  are  sometimes 
termed,  was  enforced  in  all  countries,  whose  codes  sought 
their  origin  in  the  civil  law;  and  it  is  impossible  to  sup- 
pose, that  these  doctrines  should  not,  at  an  early  period, 
have  been  introduced  into  England,  where  religious  sub- 
jects were  placed  under  the  auspices  of  the  canon  law, 
and  enforced  in  the  ecclesiastical,  and  occasionally  in  the 
chancery  courts,  then  in  the  hands  of  churchmen.  A  por- 
tion of  the  effects  of  the  deceased  were  distributed  to  these, 
pice  causa,  by  the  ecc  lesiastical  courts,  before  the  next  of 
kin  received  any  thing.  In  sixth  Reeve's  English  law, 
some  of  these  pice  causie  are  enumerated,  p.  80,  81.  The 
statute  of  superstitious  uses,  twenty-third  Henry  VIII.  is  a 
sort  of  mortmain  act,  and  distinguishes  between  supersti- 
tious, and  charitable  uses,  and, prohibits  grants  of  land  to 
the  former.  This  whole  provision  is  grounded  on  the  fact, 
that  grants  of  land  to  charitable  uses,  were  customary 
and  legitimate.  And  if  so,  such  grants  must  have  been 
enforced  somewhere,  in  some  courts,  and  no  doubt  in  the 
court  of  chancery,  which  took  cognizance  of  trusts  of  all 

*  4  Reeve's  English  Law,  437. 


kinds.    The  statute  of  charitable  uses,  is  recited  in  first 
Burns'  English  law,  307,  which  enumerates  different  char- 
itable uses,  appoints  a  special  commission  to  superintend 
them,  with  an  appeal  to  the  chancellor.     The  act  mani- 
festly refers  to  the  previous  existence  of  charitable  uses ; 
the  remedy  in  chancery,  in  cases  of  breach  of  the  charita- 
ble trust,  must  also  have  existed  previously.     This  sub- 
ject is  ably  investigated  by  Jones,  late  chancellor  of  New 
York,*  where  he  is  brought  to  the  same  conclusion,  and 
although  his  decision  was  reversed  in  the  court  of  errors 
upon  other  grounds,  his  opinion  upon  this  matter,  remains 
untouched.     Speaking  of  the  principle,  that  limitations  to 
charitable  uses  by  way  of  devise,  though  void  at  law, 
would  be  enforced  in  equity,  he  observes,  p.  479,  that  "  the 
same  principle  must  have  pervaded  and  governed  every 
case  of  charitable  use,  anterior  to  the  statute  of  Elizabeth, 
where  the  use  was  held  to  be  valid  in  equity,  when  the 
devise  or  deed  was  void  at  law,  from  the  failure  or  inca- 
pacity of  the  donee  to  take,  or  the  want  of  sufficient  cer- 
tainty  in   the  description  of  the  persons  or   designation 
of  the  objects  or  purposes  of  the   charity ;  and   indeed 
it  is  manifest   from    other   provisions  of  the   statute   it- 
self, that  the  charitable  uses  which  the  commissioners 
were    authorised    to   establish,    were    understood   to    be 
subsisting  uses  at  the  time ;  for  the  titles  of  purchasers  of 
the  estates  affected  by  them  who  had  purchased  or  ob- 
tained the  same  for  a  valuable  consideration,  and  with- 
out notice  of  the  trust,  or  charge,  were  not  to  be  impeach- 
ed by  the  decrees  or  orders  of  the  commissioners ;  but  the 
commissioners  were  nevertheless  to  direct  recompense  to 
be  made  by  those,  who  being  constituted  trustees,  or  hav- 
ing notice  of  the  charitable  use,  had  violated  the  trust 
or  defrauded  by  the  use,  by  the  sale  or  other  disposition 
of  the  estate.     Provisions  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  sup- 
position of  a  right  in  the  heir  at  law,  but  well  adapted  at 
the  same  time,  to  the  protection  of  bona  fide  purchasers, 
and  to  the  relief  of  cestui  que  trusts,  whose  interests  were 
betrayed  by  faithless  trustees,  or  usurped  by  disappointed 
heirs."     And  in  page  481  he  remarks,  "  it  is  admitted  that 
there  did  exist  a  general  jurisdiction  over   charities   in 
England,  anterior  to  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  which  was 
•xercised  by  the  chancellor;  but  that  jurisdiction,  it  is 

•  M*Carter  v.  Orphan  Asylum,  9  Conven. 


8 

said,  was  a  branch  of  the  prerogative  of  the  crown,  and 
did  not  belong  to  the  ordinary  powers  of  the  court  of 
chancery ;  and  elementary  writers  of  acknowledged  au- 
thority, are  cited  to  show  that  the  superintendence  of  cha- 
rities, in  common  with  the  charge  of  infants  and  lunatics, 
belongs  to  the  king,  as  pa7'ens  patriae,  and  that  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  chancery  in  such  cases,  does  not  appertain  to  it  as 
a  court  of  equity,  but  as  administering  the  prerogatives  and 
duties  of  the  crown.  If  it  were  so,  the  court  of  chancery 
in  this  state  might  perhaps  claim  the  jurisdiction,  for  the 
very  reason,  that  in  England  it  did  belong  to  the  crown, 
as  parens  patricE.  Charities  are  classed  with  infants,  as 
belonging  to  the  same  jurisdiction,  and  as  the  entire  cog- 
nizance of  the  cases  of  infants,  though  nominally  in  the 
crow^n,  has  long  been  delegated  to  the  chancellor,  by 
whom  it  is  exercised  ;  and  the  chancellor,  as  administer- 
ing the  same  prerogative  of  the  crown,  has  also  the  gene- 
ral superintendence  of  all  the  charities  in  the  kingdom,  it 
would  seem  to  follow,  that  as  the  general  jurisdiction  of 
the  cases  of  infants  in  this  state,  is  vested  exclusively  in 
this  court ;  charities,  if  they  belong  to  the  same  jurisdiction, 
should  also  be  of  equitable  cognizance,  and  if  so,  all  the 
remedy  of  the  English  court  of  chancery,  by  its  ordinary 
powers,  or  as  administering  the  prerogative  and  duties  of 
the  crown,  could  apply,  may  be  administered  by  this 
court." 

It  is  probable  that  the  English  court  of  chancery,  rely- 
ing upon  some  broad  expressions  in  the  statute  of  Eliza- 
beth, carried  the  law  of  charities  farther  than  it  was  be- 
fore. Thus  the  court  of  chancery,  since  that  statute,  will 
enforce  a  charity  where  there  is  no  legal  estate,  and  where 
the  trusts  are  not  designated,  and  will  devise  a  scheme 
for  the  distribution  of  the  charity;  but  in  this  country, 
without  the  aid  of  statuary  provisions,  our  courts  of  chan- 
cery will  carry  into  effect  charities  bequeathed  to  associa- 
tions of  individuals  not  incorporated,  where  there  are  trus- 
tees to  take  the  legal  estate,  and  the  trust  is  so  designated 
as  that  it  may  be  enforced  without  the  contrivance  of  a 
new  scheme.  Of  this  opinion  is  chancellor  Kent.*  In 
Inglis  T.  the  Trustees  of  the  Sailor's  Snug  Harbor,f  it  was 

*  2  Kent's  Com.  Lee.  33. 

t  Peters'  U.  S.  Rep.  p.  119,  and  see  the  opinion  of  Justice  Story  in  the 
Appendix  to  do.,  delivered  in  a  former  case.  Also,  Beatty  t.  Kurtz,  2 
Peters'  U.  S.  Rep.  p.  366. 


9 

decided  that  a  devise  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and 
supporting  aged,  decrepid,  and  worn  out  sailors,  is  a  trust 
which  equity  will  enforce,  and  they  go  so  far  as  to  say, 
that  if  the  devise  of  the  legal  estate  should  be  inoperative, 
the  trust  would  fasten  upon  the  land  in  the  hands  of  the 
heir.  In  the  Attorney  General  vs.  Pearson,  third  Merivale, 
409,  Lord  Eldon  says,  "  that  a  devise  (notwithstanding 
the  statute  of  charitable  uses,)  for  the  purpose  clearly  ex- 
pressed, of  maintaining  a  society  of  protestant  dissenters, 
would  be  enforced."  A  similiar  opinion  was  given  in  this 
court,  by  chancellor  Williamson,  in  the  case  of  the  execu- 
tors of  Ackerman  against  the  legatees.  The  statute  of 
New  Jersey  incorporating  trustees  to  hold  property  in  trust 
for  religious  societies,  recognizes  the  doctrine,  that  these 
religious  societies  are  legitimate  ceslui  que  trusts  in  equity, 
for  they  are  not  incorporated  by  it;  the  trustees  only  are 
incorporated,  for  the  better  transmission  of  the  legal  es- 
tate, of  which  privilege  a  religious  society  may  avail  them- 
selves if  they  think  proper;  but  no  law  was  necessary  to 
incorporate  the  society,  to  enjoy  the  equitable  beneficial 
interests  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

We  admit,  therefore,  the  equity  of  the  complainants* 
claim,  if  they  are  really  and  truly  the  preparative  meeting 
in  Crosswicks,  for  whose  use  this  school  fund  was  created. 
We  do  not  place  ourselves  behind  the  ramparts  of  the  com- 
mon law,  and  say  that  Hendrickson  is  entitled  to  recover 
as  the  legal  obligee  of  this  fund.  We  admit  the  trust,  and 
claim  only,  on  the  ground  that  he,  and  not  Decow,  is  the 
true  and  legitimate  trustee. 

It  may  be  asked,  why  this  effort  to  show  that  the  claim- 
ant in  this  bill  of  interpleader,  has  a  right  to  sue  in  the 
character  of  trustee,  and  to  recover  if  his  claim  is  sup- 
ported ?  I  answer,  that  I  feel  anxious  to  place  this  case 
upon  its  true  merits,  and  to  leave  no  other  ground  upon 
either  side,  if  possible,  upon  which  a  technical  decision 
could  be  made,  aside  of  the  merits  of  the  case.  My  clients, 
confident  in  the  lawfulness  and  righteousness  of  their  cause, 
wish  to  have  a  decision  upon  the  main  question,  which  of 
these  parties  forming  these  separate  preparative  meetings, 
is  the  true  society  of  Friends,  and  as  such,  entitled  to  the 
property. 

There  is  another  preliminary  topic,  upon  which  I  will 
trouble  the  court  with  a  few  additional  remarks.  Though 
a  religious  society  has  an  equitable  beneficial  interest  in 


10 

property,  held  in  trust  for  them,  yet  they  take  it,  not  in 
their  individual,  but  in  their  social  capacity;  they  take  this 
benefit  as  members,  and  only  so  long  as  they  have  the  quali- 
fication of  members.  Though  not  a  corporation,  they  par- 
take, as  to  this  purpose,  in  equity,  in  some  measure,  of  the 
corporate  character.  This  doctrine  may  be  applied  to  all 
charitable  trusts,  where  bodies  of  men,  and  not  individuals, 
are  the  persons  for  whose  use  it  is  held  by  the  beneficiaries. 
Thus  in  the  case  of  the  Saijor's  Snug  Harbor,  in  order  to 
enjoy  the  bounty,  the  persons  must  be  aged  or  decrepit 
seamen,  and  attached  to  the  institution  formed  under  that 
will  for  the  dispensation  of  the  charity.  The  moment  they 
cease  to  answer  that  character,  they  cease  to  be  the  ob- 
jects of  that  bounty.  Suppose  a  large  majority  of.  them 
should  be  decrepit  seamen,  and  false  to  the  generous  char- 
acter of  their  profession,  they  should  unanimously  pass  a 
resolve  that  on  their  recovery,  they  would  appropriate  the 
property  which  the  benevolent  founder  had  devoted  to  the 
solace  of  those,  whose  best  days  had  been  spent  in  buffet- 
ting  the  waves,  and  that  they  would  apply  these  funds  to 
other  purposes;  would  a  court  of  equity  recognise  their 
right  to  do  so,  under  the  pretence,  that  they  for  the  time 
being,  were  the  objects  of  that  bounty  ?  On  such  a  point 
no  court  could  hesitate. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  the  doctrines  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  and  to  show  that  those  religious  opin- 
ions set  forth  by  Hendrickson  in  his  answer,  and  now 
entertained  by  those  to  whom  he  is  attached,  are  the  ancient, 
established,  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  this  religious  sect. 
They  are  set  out  in  his  answer,  and  I  cannot  state  them  in 
better  lanjruage. 

"In  the  first  place,  although  the  societyof  Friends  have 
seldom  made  use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in 
the  existence  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  That  the  Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh — 
that  there  is  one  God  and  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things 
— that  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  who  was  glorified  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  began,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever — that 
there  is  one  Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  ;  the  leader,  and  sanctifier  and  comforter  of  his  peo- 
ple, and  that  these  three  are  one,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Spirit — that  the  principal  diflference  between  the 
people  called  Quakers,  and  other  protestant  trinitarian 


11 

sects,  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  is,  that  the 
latter  attach  the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three, 
as  what  they  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from  the 
doctrines  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The 
people  called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  considering  it  a 
mystery  beyond  finite,  human  conception,  take  up  the  doc- 
trine as  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not 
considered  themselves  as  warranted  in  making  deductions, 
however  specious. 

"  In  the  second  place,  the  people  called  Quakers  have 
always  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement — that  the 
divine  and  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  were 
united  ;  that  thus  united,  he  suffered,  and  that  through  his 
sufferings,  death  and  resurrection,  he  atoned  for  the  sins 
of  men.  That  the  son  of  God,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  took 
flesh,  became  perfect  man,  according  to  the  flesh,  de- 
scended and  came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David — 
that  being  with  God  from  all  eternity,  being  himself  God, 
and  also  in  time  partaking  of  the  nature  of  man,  through 
him  is  the  goodness  and  love  of  God  conveyed  to  mankind, 
and  that  by  him  again  man  receiveth  and  partaketh  of 
these  mercies — that  Christ  look  upon  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  his  holy  body  and  blood  was  an  offering  and  a 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

"  In  the  third  place,  the  people  called  Quakers  believe 
that  the  Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration,  and  when 
rightly  interpreted  are  unerring  guides ;  and  to  use  the 
language  adopted  by  them,  they  are  able  to  make  wise 
unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 
They  believe  that  the  spirit  still  operates  upon  the  souls 
of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate,  it 
furnishes  the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the  Scriptures 
proceeding  from  it,  must  be  secondary  in  reference  to  this 
primary  source,  whence  they  proceed ;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  dictates  of  the  spirit  are  always  true  and  uniform,  all 
ideas  and  views  which  any  person  may  entertain  repug- 
nant to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  which  are  unerr- 
ing, must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such  are  the 
doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient  society 
of  Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still  entertain- 
ed by  the  "  Orthodox"  party  afoi'esaid,  to  which  party  this 
defendant  belongs.  That  these  doctrines  are  with  the 
said  religious  society  I'undamental,  and  any  individual,  en- 
tertaining sentiments  and  opinions  contrary  to  all  or  any 


12 

of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is  held  not  to  be  in  the 
same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or  people  called 
Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly. 

I  am  aware,  from  the  course  heretofore  pursued  on  the 
other  side,  that  an  objection  will  be  taken  to  a  considera- 
tion and  decision  upon  these  doctrines  by  the  court.  It 
will  be  said  that  this  is  a  matter  of  conscience,  which  can- 
not and  ought  not  to  be  probed — that  the  subject  eludes 
the  research  of  a  temporal  tribunal,  and  is  too  difficult  to 
be  investigated.  I  concede,  most  unequivocally  to  the  op- 
posite party,  the  right  of  conscience  and  religious  liberty 
to  its  full  extent  But  when  the  religious  doctrines  of  any 
man,  or  of  any  set  of  men,  should  be  ascertained  to  settle 
a  question  of  property,  to  determine  a  trust,  and  who  are 
the  proper  objects  of  that  trust,  that  matter  may  be  in- 
quired into  as  well  as  any  other ;  and  there  is  no  more  dif- 
ficulty attending  the  investigation  than  in  numerous  other 
matters  which  are  examined  and  discussed  in  our  courts 
of  justice.  Warren  Hastings  was  governor  general  of  In- 
dia. In  that  capacity,  he  declared  war,  negotiated  trea- 
ties, exacted  contributions  from  tributary  princes.  He  was 
impeached  before  the  House  of  Lords,  for  gross  malversa- 
tion in  office,  in  the  government  of  an  empire,  through  a 
series  of  years :  an  empire  much  greater  than  the  kingdom 
of  Great  Britain,  not  only  his  acts,  but  through  them  his  pur- 
poses, his  motives,  and  I  may  say,  his  political  doctrines, 
were  inquired  into.  Pamphlets,  treaties,  public  documents 
of  every  kind  were  examined — months  were  devoted  to  the 
inquiry.  Now  this  court  has  the  same  facilities  for  inves- 
tigation, and  proceeds  very  much  on  the  same  principles, 
on  which  a  parliamentary  impeachment  is  conducted. 

But  let  me  refer  you  to  other  cases :  for  instance,  to 
the  trials  of  Hardy  and  Tooke  for  high  treason.  They  were 
members  of  a  society  formed  in  England,  as  was  alleged 
on  the  part  of  the  government,  for  treasonable  purposes. 
On  the  other  side,  it  was  said,  their  object  was  to  obtain 
by  legitimate  means,  a  salutary  parliamentary  reform. 
On  this  inquiry,  the  constitutions  of  this  and  other  socie- 
ties, pamphlets  and  proclamations,  issued  by  their  mem- 
bers, and  sometimes  directly  under  their  authority,  were 
given  in  evidence.  Day  after  day,  volume  after  volume 
was  poured  in  upon  the  jury — and  what  did  the  court  do  ? 
Did  they  fold  up  their  arms,  and  say,  why  this  is  too  dif- 
ficult a  matter  for  us,  and  especially  for  the  jury,  who  are 


^J 


13 

to  be  kept  together  without  meat  or  drink,  to  inquire  into, 
^nd  we  must  shrink  from  the  task?  No.  They  met  the 
fficulties  of  the  case  boldly  and  fairly,  and  even  relaxed 
irom  the  strictness  with  which  a  jury  is  usually  guarded, 
in  order  to  meet  the  exigency  of  the  case.  A  similar 
course  was  adopted  on  the  trial  of  Fries  for  high  treason, 
in  this  country.  There  is  a  boldness  and  a  depth  of  in- 
vestigation, peculiar  to  the  administration  of  English  and  of 
American  law,  which  stops  at  no  obstruction,  ho wever  great, 
which  is  repressed  by  no  difficulty,  however  appalling. 

Before  1  proceed  to  the  proof  of  these  doctrines,  permit 
me  to  make  a  few  explanatory  remarks  upon  them.     The 
society  of  Friends  do  not  use  the  word  trinity — nor  do 
they  apply  the  term  person  to  the  Godhead ;  because,  as 
they  say,  they  do  not  find  these  words  in  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  cautious  in  not  using  any  scholastic  phrases  to 
convey  ideas,  the  result  of  metaphysical  reasoning  upon 
subjects  beyond  their  comprehension.     And  it  is  somewhat 
remarkable,  that  while  this  society  has  been  charged  with 
attaching  too  much  influence  to  the  operation  of  the  divine 
light  upon  the  soul,  they  have,  in  conveying  their  religious 
ideas  upon  doctrinal  points,  paid  a  greater  deference  to 
Scriptural  language  than  any  other  sect.     They  have  been 
cautious  not  to  be  wise  beyond  what  was  written.     In  their 
catechism, the  answers  are  conveyed  in  Scriptural  language, 
without  addition — taking  care  to  select  such  passages  as 
convey  the  idea  clearly  and  beyond  doubt.     And  to  show 
what  importance  they  attach  to  this  Scriptm-al  language, 
and  how  they  interpret  it,  they  adopt  implicitly  the  text 
which  says,  "  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness  ;  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be   perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."* 
Thus  adopting  this  text,  they  show  they  do  not  undervalue 
the  Scriptures,  or  consider  ihem  liable  to  the  fallibility  of 
mere  human  productions.     They  believe  in  the  unity  of 
the  Divine  Nature,  and  also  that  there  are  three  in  the 
Godhead,  but  to  convey  their  idea  they  select  those  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  in  which  the  doctrine  is  clearly  put 
forth,  without  drawing  any  inferences  of  their  own.     Whe- 
ther the  three  are  so  distinguished  as  to  convey  the  idea 
of  individual  personage,  in  the  sense  in  which  man  under- 

*  Barclay's  Catechism,  page  5. 


14 

Stands  it,  and  can  only  understand  it  as  that  idea  comeg 
to  him,  from  observing  those  rational  intelligences  that  are 
brought  under  his  cognizance,  is  a  question  upon  which 
they  do  not  undertake  to  decide. 

In  respect  to  the  atonement,  they  believe  in  the  great 
propitiatory  sacrifice,  and  in  the  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  deem  the  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  necessary  to  salvation,  as  the  only  means 
provided  for  that  purpose.  But  they  do  not,  as  some  theo- 
logians have  done,  decide  upon  its  indispensable  necessity, 
so  as  to  exclude  the  power  of  the  Supreme  Being  to  have 
provided  another  mode,  if,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  he  had 
thought  proper  so  to  do.  They  think  it  sufficient  for  them 
to  say,  that  this  is  revealed  as  the  only  mode  actually  pro- 
vided. They  adopt  implicitly,  as  before  shown,  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  They  beheve  the  Scriptures  may 
be,  and  often  are,  misinterpreted,  when  not  read  in  a  right 
frame  pf  mind,  and  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
— but  they  do  not  hold  that  under  this  influence  they  are 
exalted  abov-e  the  Scriptures,  and  become  wiser  than  what 
is  there  revealed.  Their  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the 
light  within,  will  be  found  correctly  stated  in  the  second 
volume  of  Penn's  works,  620,  and  he  there  shows  the  Scrip- 
tural source  from  whence  they  derive  it. 

At  the  time  when  this  society  arose,  the  religious  world, 
with  very  few  exceptions,  was  trinitarian,  and  upon  this 
subject,  and  upon  the  co-relative  truths,  the  atonement,  and 
the  authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  they 
differed  from  no  other  trinitarian  sect,  in  any  essential  mat- 
ter. Their  principal  distinctive  features  resulted  from 
their  peculiar  opinions  in  regard  to  dress  and  manners,  to 
oaths,  to  wars,  and  to  a  hireling  ministry,  and  for  these 
opinions  they  suflTered  a  good  deal  of  persecution  in  those 
days,  when  the  libera]  doctrines  of  religious  toleration 
were  not  properly  understood  or  practised  upon.  But  we 
do  not  find  them  persecuted  or  punished  for  undervaluing 
the  Scriptures,  for  rejecting  the  atonement,  or  for  their 
opinions  upon  the  Godhead,  with  but  a  solitary  exception, 
which  I  shall  by  and  by  consider. 

In  this  inquiry,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  abstract  truth  or  accuracy  of  these 
doctrines.  Such  an  inquiry  belongs  properly  to  no  earthly 
tribunal.  The  only  inquiry  is,  whether  they  are,  or  are 
not  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  this  ancient  society  of 
Friends,  aad  with  a  view  to  settle  a  question  of  trust. 


15 

I  think  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  these  three  doctrines 
in  question,  are  proved  to  be  held  by  that  society  as  clearly 
and  abundantly,  as  it  would  be  possible  for  any  sect  to 
prove  what  its  religious  doctrines  are.  We  are  told  on  the 
other  side,  that  these  cannot  be  their  doctrines  of  the  trinity, 
as  a  society,  though  individual  members  may  hold  to  them, 
because  the  society  has  no  creed.  Passages  have  been 
referred  to  in  their  writings,  in  which  they  object  to  a  creed 
— and  this  matter  of  a  creed,  in  the  course  of  the  examina- 
tion, has  been  made  the  subject  of  much  comment,  and  of 
some  sarcasm.  But  what  is  meant  by  a  creed  ?  The 
modern  expositions  of  religious  doctrine,  are  usually  called 
confessions  of  faith.  The  term  creed,  is  more  generally 
applied  to  those  manifestoes  of  doctrine  which  were  put 
forth  in  the  earlier  stages  of  Christianity,  by  conventions 
or  general  councils,  and  which  were  imposed  upon  the 
community  to  be  believed  under  severe  penalties,  always 
temporal,  and  sometimes  eternal.  It  will  be  found  that  in 
this  sense,  and  as  opposed  to  religious  toleration,  this  soci- 
ety has  condemned  creeds.  And  surely  it  will  not  be  pre- 
tended that  it  is  necessary  for  a  society  to  have  such  a 
creed  before  it  can  be  said  to  entertain  any  fundamental 
religious  doctrines.  But  we  will  not  dispute  about  words, 
provided  the  substance  be  preserved.  AH  I  mean  to  say, 
is  that  the  doctrines  in  question  are  held  by  this  society  as 
fundamental,  and  I  mean  to  prove  it. 

They  are  established,  in  the  first  place,  by  public  and 
authoritative  acts  and  declarations,  adopted  by  this  society, 
and  about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute.  The  discipline 
of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is  the  first  piece  of 
evidence  to  which  I  will  call  your  attention — a  work  ac- 
knowledged on  all  hands,  as  an  authentic  source,  whose 
provisions  are  obligatory  upon  the  members,  as  a  rule  of 
conduct.  HaUday  Jackson,  their  witness,  admits  this.  In 
page  twenty-three,  of  this  book  you  will  find  the  following 
regulation : — 

"  If  any  in  membership  with  us  shall  blaspheme,  or 
speak  profanely  of  Almighty  God,  Christ  Jesus,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  or  she  ought  early  to  be  tenderly  treated 
with  for  their  instruction,  and  the  convincement  of  their 
understanding,  that  they  may  experience  repentance  and 
forgiveness :  but  should"  any,  notwithstanding  this  brother- 
ly labor,  persist  in  their  error,  or  deny  the  divinity  of  our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate  revelation 


i- 


■^^  16 

t\ 

of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures; 
as  it  is  manifest  thfey  are  not  one  in  faith  with  us,  the 
monthly  meeting  where  the  party  belongs,  having  extend- 
ed due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit  of  the  individual  with- 
out effect,  ought  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue  their  te«- 
timony  accordingly." 

In  Barclay's  Catechism,  already  adverted  to,  and  which 
is  known  to  be  a  standard  work,  adopted  by  the  society, 
these  doctrines  are  explicitly  set  forth.*  When  you  find 
these  doctrines  are  imperatively  enjoined  in  their  disci- 
pline, under  severe  sanctions,  and  put  forth  in  their  cate- 
chism for  the  instruction  of  their  youth,  as  the  principles 
in  which  they  are  to  be  trained  up,  how  can  it  be  pretend- 
ed that  these  are  not  held  by  the  society  as  their  settled 
religious  opinions?  A  catechism,  above  all  things,  would 
be  adopted  by  a  religious  society,  with  the  utmost  circum- 
spection, and  care  would  be  taken  that  no  doctrines  should 
be  inculcated  which  were  not  held  sacred  by  the  society. 
Such  care  has  been  taken  in  this  instance.  That  book  has 
been  penned  with  the  greatest  caution.  Scriptural  lan- 
guage has  been  used,  and  the  most  striking  passages  of 
Scripture,  such  as  are  mainly  relied  upon  by  all  sects  hold- 
ing these  doctrines,  have  been  culled  to  convey  their  ideas. 
Would  this  have  been  done  if  that  work  had  been  intended 
to  be  unitarian  1  Would  they  not,  on  the  other  hand,  like  all 
unitarians,  have  endeavored  to  explain  away  these  passages? 

George  Fox  is  admitted  to  be  the  founder  of  this  society 
— though  he  is  not  c'allcd  the  head,  inasmuch  as  they  ac- 
knowledge no  head  but  the  Great  Head  of  the  Christian 
Church.  They  are  adherents  to  his  doctrines.  This  is 
matter  of  history,  and  has,  though  a  work  of  supereroga- 
tion, been  proved  in  the  cause.  See  his  letter  to  the  go- 
vernor of  Barbadoes: — 

"For  the  Governor  of  Barbadoes,  with  his  council  and 
assembly,  and  all  others  in  power,  both  civil  and  mi- 
litary, in  this  island;  from  the  people  called  Quakers. 

"Whereas,  many  scandalous  lies  and  slanders  have 
been  cast  upon  us  to  render  us  odious  ;  as  that  "  we  deny 
God,  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  Scriptures  of  truth,"  &c.  This 
is  to  inform  you,  that  all  our  books  and  declarations, 
which  for  these  many  years  have  been  published  to  the 
world,  clearly  testify  the  contrary.     Yet,  for  your  satis- 

*  See  Barclay's  Catechism,  pages  2, 3,  8*  10, 11,  12, 34. 


17 

faction  we  now  plainly  and  sincerely  declare,  that  we 
own  and  believe  in  the  only  wise,  omnipotent,  and  ever- 
lasting God,  the  creator  of  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth, 
and  the  preserver  of  all  that  he  hath  made  :  who  is  God 
over  all,  blessed  for  ever;  to  whom  be  all  honor,  glory, 
dominion,  praise  and  thanksgiving,  both  now  and  for  ever- 
more !  And  we  own  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  beloved 
and  only  begotten  Son,  in  whom  he  is  well  pleased  ;  who 
was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary ;  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood, 
even  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  who  is  the  express  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  the  first-born  of  every  creature,  by 
whom  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,  visible  and  invisible;  whether  they  be  thrones,  do- 
minions, principalities,  or  powers ;  all  things  were  created 
by  him.  And  we  own  and  believe  that  he  was  made  a 
sacrifice  for  sin,  who  knew  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found 
in  his  mouth;  that  he  was  crucified  for  us  in  the  flesh, 
without  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  that  he  was  buried, 
and  rose  again  on  the  third  day  by  the  power  of  his 
Father,  for  our  justification ;  and  that  he  ascended  up  into 
heaven,  and  now  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  This 
Jesus,  who  was  the  foundation  of  the  holy  prophets  and 
apostles,  is  our  foundation  ;  and  we  believe  there  is  no 
other  foundation  to  be  laid  but  that  which  is  laid,  even 
Christ  Jesus :  who  tasted  death  for  every  man,  shed  his 
blood  for  all  men,  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not 
for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  : 
according  as  John  the  Baptist  testified  of  him,  when  he 
said  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world,"  John,  i.  29.  We  believe  that  he  alone  is 
our  Redeemer  and  Saviour,  the  captain  of  our  salvation, 
who  saves  us  from  sin,  as  well  as  from  hell,  and  the  Wrath 
to  come,  and  destroys  the  devil  and  his  works ;  he  is  the 
seed  of  the  woman  that  bruises  the  serpent's  head,  to  wit, 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last. 
He  is  (as  the  Scriptures  of  truth  say  of  him)  our  wisdom, 
righteousness,  justification,  and  redemption;  neither  is 
there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there  is  no  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  may  be 
saved.  He  alone,  is  the  shepherd  and  bishop  of  our  souls : 
he  is  our  prophet,  whom  Moses  long  since  testified  of,  say- 
ing, "  a  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto 
you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear  in 
3* 


18 

all  things,  whatsoever  he  shall  say  unto  you :  and  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  every  soul  that  will  not  hear  that  pro- 
phet, shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people."  Acts, 
ii.  22.  23.  He  is  now  come  in  spirit,  "  and  hath  given  us 
an  understanding,  that  we  know  him  that  is  true."  He 
rules  in  our  hearts  by  his  law  of  love  and  life,  and  makes 
us  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.  We  have  no  life, 
but  by  him :  for  he  is  the  quickening  spirit,  the  second 
Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven,  by  whose  blood  we  are 
cleansed,  and  our  consciences  sprinkled  from  dead  works, 
to  serve  the  living  God.  He  is  our  mediator,  who  makes 
peace  and  reconciliation  between  God  offended  and  us  of- 
fending ;  he  being  the  oath  of  God,  the  new  covenant  of 
light,  life,  grace,  and  peace,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faith.  This  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  heavenly  man,  the  Em- 
anuel, God  with  us,  we  all  own  and  believe  in ;  he  whom 
the  high-priest  raged  against,  and  said,  he  had  spoken  blas- 
phemy ;  whom  the  priests  and  elders  of  the  Jews  took 
counsel  together  against,  and  put  to  death ;  the  same  whom 
Judas  betrayed  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  which  the  priests 
gave  him  as  a  reward  for  his  treason ;  who  also  gave 
large  money  to  the  soldiers,  to  broach  a  horrible  lie, 
namely,  "  that  his  disciples  came  and  stole  him  away  by 
night  whilst  they  slept."  After  he  was  risen  from  the 
dead,  the  history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles  sets  forth  how 
the  chief  priests  and  elders  persecuted  the  disciples  of  this 
Jesus,  for  preaching  Christ  and  his  resurrection.  This, 
we  say,  is  that  Lord  Jesus  Christ  whom  we  own  to  be  oui* 
life  and  salvation. 

"  Concerning  the  holy  Scriptures,  we  believe  they  were 
given  forth  by  the  holy  spirit  of  God,  through  the  holy  men 
of  God,  who  (as  the  Scripture  itself  declares,  2  Pe/.  i.  2L) 
"  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  We 
believe  that  they  are  to  be  read,  believed,  and  fulfilled  (he 
that  fulfils  them"^  is  Christ;)  and  they  are  "profitable  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  and  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works,"  2  Tim.  iii.  19.  "  and  are  able 
to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  in  Christ  Jesus." 
We  believe  the  holy  Scriptures  are  the  words  of  God  ; 
for  it  is  said  Exodus,  xx,  1.  "  God  spake  all  these  words, 
saying,"  &c.  meaning  the  ten  commandments  given  forth 
upon  Mount  Sinai.  And  in  Rev.  xxii.  18.  saith  John,  "  I 
testify  to  every  man  that  heareth  the  words  of  the  pro- 


10 

phecy  of  this  book,  if  any  man  addeth  unto  these,  and  if 
any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of 
this  prophecy,"  (not  the  word)  &c.  So  in  Luke,  i.  20. 
"  because  thou  believest  not  my  words."  And  in  John,  v. 
47.  XV.  7.  xiv-,23.  xii.  47.*  So  that  we  call  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, as  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  holy  men  of  God  called 
them,  viz.  the  words  of  God. 

"  Another  slander  they  have  cast  upon  us,  is,  "  that  we 
teach  the  negroes  to  rebel;"  a  thing  we  utterly  abhor  in 
our  hearts,  the  Lord  knows  it,  who  is  the  searcher  of  all 
hearts,  and  knows  all  things,  and  can  testify  for  us,  that 
this  is  a  most  abominable  untruth.  That  which  we  have 
spoken  to  them,  is  to  exhort  and  admonish  them  to  be  so- 
ber, to  fear  God,  to  love  their  masters  and  mistresses,  to 
be  faithful  and  diligent  in  their  service  and  business,  and 
then  their  masters  and  overseers  would  love  them  and  deal 
kindly  and  gently  with  them ;  also  that  they  should  not 
beat  their  wives,  nor  the  wives  their  husbands  ;  neither 
should  the  men  have  many  wives ;  that  they  should  not 
steal,  nor  be  drunk,  nor  commit  adultery,  nor  fornication, 
nor  curse,  swear,  nor  lie, .nof  give  bad  words  to  one  ano- 
ther, nor  to  any  one  else  ;  for  there  is  something  in  them 
that  tells  them  they  should  not  practice  these  nor  any  other 
evils.  But  if  they  notwithstanding  should  do  them,  then 
we  let  them  know  there  are  but  two  ways,  the  one  that 
leads  to  heaven,  where  the  righteous  go;  and  the  other 
that  leads  to  hell,  where  the  wicked  and  debauched,  whore- 
mongers, adulterers,  murderers,  and  liars  go.  To  the  one, 
the  Lord  will  say,  "  come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit 
the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world ;"  to  the  other,  "  depart,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels;"  so  the  wicked 
go  into  "  everlasting  punishment,  but  the  righteous  into 
life  eternal,"  Mat.  xxv.  Consider,  friends,  it  is  no  trans- 
gression for  a  master  of  a  family  to  instruct  his  family 
himself,  or  for  others  to  do  it  in  his  behalf;  but  rather  it  is 
a  very  great  duty  incumbent  upon  them.  Abraham  and 
Joshua  did  so:  of  the  first,  the  Lord  said.  Gen.  xviii.  19. 
*'  I  know  that  Abraham  will  command  his  children,  and 
his  household  after  him  ;  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham  the  things  that  he  hath  spoken  of  him." 
And  the  latter  said.  Josh.  xxiv.  15.  "  Choose  ye  this  day 
whom  ye  will  serve — but  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will 


20 

serve  the  Lord."  We  declare,  that  we  esteem  it  a  duty 
incumbent  on  us  to  pray  with  and  for,  to  teach,  instruct, 
and  admonish  those  in  and  belonging  to  our  families :  this 
being  a  command  of  the  Lord,  disobedience  thereunto  will 
provoke  his  displeasure ;  as  may  b'e  seen  in  Jer.  x.  25.  "  Pour 
out  thy  fury  upon  the  heathen  that  know  thee  not,  and  upon 
the  families  that  call  not  upon  thy  name."  Negroes,  taw- 
nies,  Indians,  make  up  a  very  great  part  of  the  families  in 
this  island  ;  for  whom  an  account  will  be  required  by  him 
who  comes  to  judge  both  quick  and  dead  at  the  great  day 
of  judgment,  when  every  one  shall  be  "  rewarded  accord- 
ing to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  whether  they  be  good 
or  whether  they  be  evil :"  at  that  day,  we  say,  of  the  re- 
surrection both  of  the  good  and  of  the  bad,  and  of  the 
just  and  the  unjust,  when  "  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be  reveal- 
ed from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  with  flaming  fire, 
taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  obey 
not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  be 
punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power,  when  he  shall 
come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  admired  in  all  them 
that  believe  in  that  day,"  2  Thes.  i.  8.  &c.  See  also,  2 
Pet.  iii.  3.  &c." 

It  would  be  impossible  for  man  to  select  language  stron- 
ger than  this,  in  support  of  these  very  doctrines  for  which 
we  are  now  contending.  ^^ 

In  the  confession  of  faith,  subjoined  to  their  catechism, 
and  proved  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  yearly  meeting, 
these  doctrines  are  distinctly  and  unequivocally  avowed. 

I  shall  now  refer  the  court  to  some  very  important  pub- 
lic acts  and  proceedings  of  this  society,  an  account  of 
which  is  to  be  met  wuth  in  Sewell's  History,  without  taking 
time  to  read  all  the  passages.  When  George  Keith  abandon- 
ed the  faith  of  this  society,  he  made  heavy  and  severe 
charges  against  them,  charging  them  with  maintaining  the 
doctrines  now  ascribed  to  Elias  Hicks.  About  this  time, 
the  Friends  came  out  boldly  and  denied  it,  and  in  a  pub- 
lic address,  published  by  them  on  that  occasion,  they  pro- 
claimed the  doctrines  for  which  we  are  now  contending.* 
Shortly  afterwards,  they  presented  a  document  to  the  par- 
liament of  Great  Britain,  on  finding  that  these  charges  of 
Keith  were  repeated  by  Francis  Bugg,  which  is  in  these 
words : 

*  Sewell's  History,  499. 


I.  "  Be  it  known  to  all,  that  we  sincerely  believe  and 
confess,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  is  the  true  Messiah,  the  very  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,  to  whom  all  the  prophets  gave  witness;  and 
that  we  do  highly  value  his  death,  sufferings,  works, 
offices,  and  merits,  for  the  redemption  of  mankind,  together 
with  his  laws,  doctrine,  and  ministry. 

IJ.  "  That  this  very  Christ  of  God,  who  is  the  Lamb  of 
God,  that  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  was  slain,  was 
dead,  and  is  alive,  and  lives  forever  in  his  divine  eternal 
glory,  dominion,  and  power  with  the  Father. 

in.  "  That  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, are  of  divine  authority,  as  being  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God. 

IV.  "  And  that  magistracy  or  civil  government,  is 
God's  ordinance,  the  good  ends  thereof  being  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  evil-doers,  and  praise  of  them  that  do  well."     . 

A  difficulty  occurred  which  prevented  them  from  enjoy- 
ing tha  benefits  of  the  toleration  act,  owing  to  their  refusal 
to  take  the  oath  required.  By  interceding  with  the  parlia- 
ment, they  at  length  succeeded  in  procuring  a  participation 
of  its  benefits,  by  getting  the  affirmation  substituted  in  the 
place  of  the  oath.*  Now  this  toleration  act,  directly  and 
palpably  excluded  unitarians  from  its  benefits.  The  hold- 
ing of  unitarian  doctrines  was  rendered  penal  by  another 
act  of  parliament,  passed  a  few  years  afterwards,  and  they 
were  not  tolerated  in  England  until  the  year  eighteen 
hundred  and  thirteen.  Yet  the  Quakers  came  in  and  were 
cherished  under  the  wings  of  the  toleration  act.  On  the 
promise  by  queen  Anne,  on  her  accession  to  the  throne,  to 
support  the  toleration  act,  the  yearly  meeting  presented  a 
thankful  address  to  her  majesty.  A  similar  address  was 
sent  to  George  1.  upon  a  like  promise  by  him,  on  his  accession 
to  the  throne. 

What  then,  shall  we  say  to  these  public  and  official  man- 
ifestos, thus  solemnly  put  forth,  and  upon  the  strength  of 
which,  important  parliamentary  privileges  have  been  ob- 
tained and  enjoyed  1  Shall  we  say  they  were  all  delusive  ? 
A  mere  promise  to  the  ear,  to  catch  the  favor  of  the  govern- 
ment. Elias  Hicks  has  been  compelled  to  say  of  the  letter 
of  Fox  to  'the  governor  of  Barbadoes,  which  he  found 

*  Burnett's  History  of  his  own  Times,  3. 13. 


22 

staring  in  the  face  of  his  new  doctrines,  that  it  did  not 
contain  Fox's  real  sentiments.  But  are  his  adherents  pre- 
pared to  follow  him  in  these  charges,  and  to  extend  them 
to  the  whole  society  at  that  early  period  1  Are  they  pre- 
pared to  say  that  their  forefathers  were  timid,  false,  and 
hollow  hearted  ?  Afraid  to  hold  forth  their  real  sentiments, 
and  brave  the  danger  ?  That  their  forefathers,  in  this  coun- 
try, were  equally  insincere,  by  conniving  at  their  falsehood, 
and  continuing  in  unity  with  them  ?  Are  not  these  char- 
ges, when  made  by  their  enemies,  belied  by  the  whole  tenor 
of  their  conduct  ?  and  have  they  not,  therefore,  when 
thus  made,  been  repelled  by  this  society?  During  all  this 
period,  they  were  suffering  persecution  for  refusing  to  en- 
gage in  military  operations,  and  to  pay  tithes.  Were  they 
false  to  some  of  their  principles  and  true  to  others  1  What- 
ever may  be  thought  of  the  zeal  of  the  early  Friends  in 
many  particulars,  the  charge  of  insincerity  cannot  with 
any  propriety  be  made  against  them.  And  we  are  in 
possession  of  the  conclusive  fact,  that  they  publicly  held 
forth  these  doctrines,  and  enjoyed  the  benefits  flowing  from 
their  promulgation. 

The  preaching  of  ministers,  approved  and  accepted  by 
a  religious  society,  must  furnish  strong  evidence  of  the 
doctrines  held  by  it.  As  a  catechism  is  designed  for  the 
instruction  of  youth,  the  preacher  is  provided  and  designed 
for  the  instruction  of  all,  whether  old  or  young.  Hence, 
in  this  society,  great  care  is  bestowed  upon  the  setting 
apart  of  experienced,  pious,  and  intelligent  persons  for  the 
ministry,  and  the  elders  are  especially  required  by  thedis- 
cipHne,  to  exercise  a  vigilance,  and  to  admonish  and  re- 
prove them  for  a  departure  in  faith  or  doctrine.  William 
Jackson,  an  aged  witness,  who  has  travelled  over  England 
and  this  country,  and  has  heard  all  their  ministers  who 
have  appeared  in  his  time,  before  and  since  the  American 
revolution,  tells  us  that  they  have  uniformly  held  forth  these 
doctrines,  and  no  witness  contradicts  him,  or  pretends  that 
any  other  doctrines  have  been  put  forth  in  the  ministry, 
except  by  Elias  Hicks  and  his  associates. 

If  these  were  not  the  settled  doctrines  of  the  society, 
how,  or  why,  has  it  happened  that  they  have  been  uniformly 
preached  among  them?  If  the  contrary  doctrines  were 
held  in  this  society  indiscriminately,  why  was 'it  reserved 
for  Elias  Hicks  and  his  associates  to  broach  them  for  the 
first  time  ?  Why  has  this  light  beamed  from  that  source 
alone  ?    This  is  unaccountable  upon  their  pretensions. 


23 

We  have  produced  witness  after  witness,  aged,  intelli- 
gent, experienced  men,  of  character  irreproachable;  men 
whose  lives  have  been  devoted  to  the  cause  of  religion, 
Samuel  Bettle,  Thomas  Willis,  William  Jackson  and  others, 
whose  evidence  is  before  you,  and  will  be  carefully  in- 
spected ;  who  join  in  saying,  that  these  are  the  established 
doctrines  of  that  society ;  and  that  those  who  hold  the  con- 
trary doctrine  are  not  in  the  same  faith  with  the  society. 
They  cannot  be  mistaken.  Have  they  testified  to  what  is 
not  true  ?  Let  the  negative  evidence  of  the  witnesses  on 
the  other  side  answer  that  question.  When  asked  to  dis- 
close their  doctrines  and  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  in 
reference  to  these  points,  they  invariably  refuse.  And 
why?  Because  they  say  they  are  not  bound  to  answer. 
They  do  not  pretend  that  they  are  scrupulous  against  dis- 
closing their  religious  belief;  on  the  contrary  they  are 
eager  to  disclose  it  on  other  points,  such  as  the  light  with- 
in, their  scruples  about  oaths,  and  other  matters.  But  they 
refuse  to  disclose  on  these  points,  because  as  they  pretend, 
they  are  not  bound  to  do  so.  The  plain  inference  is,  that 
such  a  disclosure  would  be  fatal  to  their  cause. 

I  will  next  refer  the  court  to  the  standard  works  of  this 
society,  Barclay's  Apology,  his  work  on  church  govern- 
ment, The  Confession  of  Faith,  Sewell's  History,  Fox's 
Journal,  and  others,  proved  to  be  standard  works  of  the 
society,  and  made  exhibits  in  this  cause.*  I  might  read 
for  days,  from  the  writings  of  these  authors,  in  support  of 
these  doctrines,  but  I  forbear  to  proceed  any  further  with 
it.  I  will  direct  the  court,  however,  to  Evans'  Exposition, 
as  containing  numerous  other  references  to  the  standard 
works  of  the  society,  in  support  of  these  doctrines.  I  ad- 
vert to  it,  however,  merely  as  a  book  of  reference,  intend- 
ing in  this  case,  to  rely  only  on  evidence  which  arose  and 
existed  prior  to  this  dissention. 

But  there  is  one  writer  belonging  to  this  society,  who 
has  been  so  much  commented  upon  and  alluded  to  in  the 
examination  of  witnesses  in  this  cause,  that  it  will  not  do 
to  pass  him  over  without  special  notice.  I  have  said  that 
amidst  all  the  persecutions  inflicted  upon  the  early  Friends, 
they  were  never  punished  for  holding  doctrines  repugnant 
to  those  now  avowed  on  our  side,  with  but  one  exception. 
I  allude  to  the  case  of  William  Penn.     The  character  of 

*  Mr.  Wood  here  read  a  variety  of  passages  from  these  different  authors. 


24 

this  man  does  not  require  our  praise,  and  would  not  be  af- 
fected by  our  censure.  On  this  side  of  the  Ailantic,  he 
has  left  the  impress  of  his  genius,  and  of  his  gooJness, 
which  will  pass  down  to  the  remotest  posterity.  He  is 
the  founder  of  a  state,  among  the  most  prominent  of  our 
Union,  which  for  all  the  virtues  that  impart  strength  and 
stability  to  national  character,  is  surpassed  by  none.  He 
has  formed  and  given  us  a  Doric  pillar  to  support  the 
capitol  of  our  empire. 

But  we  have  now  to  do  with  his  religious  writings.  The 
witnesses  tell  us,  that  although  Penn  has  always  been 
highly  respected,  yet  his  works  are  seldom  resorted  to  as 
standards,  in  respect  to  the  doctrines  of  the  society.  And 
the  reason  is  obvious.  Penn  is  a  controversial  writer,  and 
in  his  arguments,  struck  out  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  he 
is  sometimes  obscure.  His  object  is  not  so  much  to  es- 
tablish his  own  positions,  as  to  overturn  thoseof  his  adver- 
sary. He  attacks  him  with  vigor,  but  is  not  sufficiently 
on  his  guard  against  misinterpretation.  He  traces  out  the 
reasoning  of  his  opponent,  in  order  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  his  results.  But  those  results  sometimes  have  the  ap- 
pearance of  being  his  own  independent  conclusions.  This 
is  particularly  the  case  in  his  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken, 
a  work  which  is  exclusively  controversial,  and  which  has 
sometimes  subjected  him  to  the  charge  of  socinianism,  and 
sometimes  of  unqualified  infidelity,  from  the  want  of  attend- 
ing sufficiently  to  the  drift  of  the  author.  He  had  a  pub- 
lic religious  controversy,  according  to  the  fashion  of  the 
times,  with  the  Reverened  Thomas  Vincent,  upon  three 
points  of  divinity.  He  disputes  his  adversary's  doctrine 
as  to  the  three  persons  in  the  trinity,  or  modes  of  subsis- 
tence. He  did  not  mean  to  deny  the  trinity,  or  the  three 
in  the  Godhead,  so  far  as  it  is  revealed,  according  to  the 
opinion  of  this  societv,  in  the  Scriptures.  In  the  next 
place,  he  denies  the  position,  that  there  is  an  absolute  dis- 
ability in  the  Supreme  Being  to  forgive  without  a  propitia- 
tory sacrifice  of  the  high  and  exalted  character,  which  he 
admits  was  made:  he  does  not  deny  the  fact  of  such  a 
sacrifice,  and  of  its  necessity  under  the  actual  state  of  the 
christian  dispensation.  In  the  last  place,  he  denies,  the 
exclusive  justification  of  impure  persons  by  an  imputative 
righteousness.  The  fact  that  a  benefit  is  imparted  to  the 
christian  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  under  this 
dispensation,  he  does  not  deny ;  but  he  contends  for  th« 


25 

additional  necessity  of  repentance  and  good  works.  In 
the  course  of  his  remarks,  to  be  sure,  he  does,  in  terms^ 
deny  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  and  the  propitiatory 
sacrifice,  but  in  what  way,  and  for  what  purpose?  Not  as 
his  own  independent  conckisions,  but  as  the  results  to 
which  the  course  of  reasoning  pursued  by  his  antagonist, 
to  prove  his  positions,  will  lead  him,  when  followed  out, 
and  with  a  view  to  show  the  fallacy  of  all  human  reason- 
ing upon  subjects  beyond  human  comprehension.  This  is 
evident  from  the  following  passage,  in  page  252 :  "  For  it 
is  to  be  remarked  that  G.  W.  (George  Whitehead,  his  co- 
adjutor,) is  no  otherwise  a  blasphemer,  than  by  drawing 
direct  consequences  from  their  own  principles,  and  re- 
charging them  upon  themselves ;  so  that  he  did  not  speak 
hi.s  own  apprehensions,  by  his  comparison,  but  the  sense  of 
their  assertion." 

On  the  subject  of  the  trinity,  he  states  the  syllogism  of 
his  adversary  in  the  following  words  : 

'*  There  are  three  that  boar  record  in  heaven :  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are  one. 

"  These  are  either  three  manifestations ;  three  opera- 
tions ;  three  subsistences,  or  three  somethings  besides  sub- 
sistences : 

"  But  they  are  not  three  manifestations ;  three  opera- 
tions ;  three  subsistences ;  nor  three  any  thing  else  besides 
subsistences  ;  ergo  three  subsistences." 

He  then  attempts,  in  the  course  of  his  argument,  to  show 
that  the  conclusion  of  his  opponent  is  erroneously  drawn, 
because  the  premises  are  beyond  his  comprehension.  The 
subject  of  this  investigation  is  the  Supreme  Jehovah.  What 
does  man  know  about  the  nature  and  essence  of  that  Be- 
ing, who  is  to  him  incomprehensible  1  He  knows  nothing 
of  the  essence,  and  but  little  as  to  the  modes  of  operation 
of  those  spiritual  intelligenr.es  which  are  brought  under 
his  observation.  He  can  form  no  conception  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  even  they,  could  operate  upon  external  ob- 
jects, when  disembodied  of  the  organic  living  matter  which 
surrounds  them.  How  then  can  he  form  an  idea  of  the 
essence,  the  operations,  or  of  the  mode  of  subsistence  of 
the  Supreme  Being.  And  if  he  cannot  conceive  it,  how 
can  he  undertake  to  analyze  it,  or  reason  upon  the  analy- 
sis. When  he  looks  with  the  astronomer,  at  the  myriads 
of  worlds  which  are  spread  through  the  heavens,  and 
hence  infers  the  myriads  of  other  worlds  in  the  vast  field 
4 


26 

of  space  beyond  them,  he  may  form  some  faint  and  indis- 
tinct conception  of  that  wisdom,  and  of  that  power,  which 
sustains  this  mighty  creation  ;  but  what  can  he  know,  or 
presume  to  know,  of  the  mode  of  subsistence  of  such  a 
Being.  And  yet  you,  Thomas  Vincent,  bounded  in  your 
views  by  the  petty  horizon  that  surrounds  you,  a  mere 
ant  upon  a  mole-hill,  undertake,  in  a  syllogism  ;  to  limit 
the  possibility  of  existence  of  that  Being,  who  is  beyond 
and  above  all  human  comprehension.  But  we  will  try  the 
strength  of  your  syllogism  upon  your  own  principles.  You 
say  these  three  are  not  three  manifestations,  in  three  es- 
sences, and  therefore  there  are  three  modes  of  subsistence. 
-There  cannot  be  a  mode  of  subsistence,  according  to  any 
notion,  we  can  form  upon  the  subject,  distinct  from  the  es- 
sence which  does  subsist.  If,  then,  there  are  three  modes 
of  subsistence,  there  must  be  three  essences ;  and  conse- 
quently, upon  your  own  principles,  three  Gods.  But  the 
Scriptures  teach  us  that  there  is  but  one  God.  Such,  I 
take  to  be  the  scope  and  drift  of  the  reasoning  of  William 
Penn,  in  his  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken.  And  he  pursues 
the  same  course  in  his  argument  upon  the  other  points  be- 
tween them.  That  there  might  be  no  misconception  of 
his  object,  he  winds  up  with  saying : 

"  Mistake  me  not — we  never  have  disowned,  a  Father, 
Word,  and  Spirit,  which  are  one ;  but  mens'  inventions." 

His  peculiar  mode  of  reasoning  on  controversial  sub- 
jects, is  further  illustrated  in  the  Guide  Mistaken,  in  the 
second  volume  of  his  works.  He  states,  in  the  form  of 
queries,  a  number  of  propositions,  which  are  in  themselves 
directly  repugnant  to  the  doctrines  of  the  society  to  which 
he  was  attached,  and  of  all  other  trinitarian  sects.  But 
he  concludes  with  explaining  himself  fully,  that  those  are 
not  his  own  opinions,  but  the  conclusions  to  which  he  had 
brought  the  erroneous  reasoning  of  his  opponent. 

Penn  departed,  in  one  particular,  from  the  views  of  this 
society.  The  same  caution  which  induces  them  to  refrain 
from  adding  to  Scriptural  views,  the  inferences  of  human 
reason  upon  mysterious  subjects,  leads  th^m  to  abstain 
from  all  discussion  upon  such  subjects.  ~But  Penn  was 
then  young.  He  had  been  educated  in  all  the  liberal  ac- 
quirements of  the  age,  and  he  could  not  resist  the  tempta- 
tion of  bandying  a  syllogism  with  the  Reverend  Thomas 
Vincent.  It  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  an  obscurity 
in  some  of  his  controversial  writings,  which  lays  him  open 


27 

occasionally,  to  misconception.  He  was  misconceived. 
He  was  charged  with  blasphemy.  The  magistrates,  per- 
haps, were  not  skilled  in  syllogistic  reasoning,  or  able  to 
comprehend  his  object,  and  he  was  cast  into  prison.  Thus 
was  imprisoned,  on  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  the  man 
who  was  destined,  at  no  distant  period,  to  disarm  the  sav- 
age of  the  wilderness,  of  his  ferocity,  and  to  cause  him, 
with  his  hatchet  buried,  to  look  in  admiration  upon  the 
calmness  and  integrity  of  a  christian. 

In  the  second  volume  of  his  works,  from  page  783  to 
785,  you  will  find  a  view  of  his  religious  doctrines  in  full 
accordance  with  those  ascribed  by  us  to  this  society. 

■"  Perversion.  The  Quakers  deny  the  trinity. 

**  Principle.  Nothing  less  :  They  believe  in  the  holy  three, 
or  trinity,  of  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  according  to  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  that  these  three  are  truly  and  properly  one :  of 
one  nature  as  well  as  will.  But  they  are  very  tender  of 
quitting  Scripture  terms  and  phrases,  for  schoolmen's ; 
such  as  distinct  and  separate  persons  and  subsistences,  &c. 
are ;  from  whence  people  are  apt  to  entertain  gross  ideas 
and  notions  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  And 
they  judge,  that  a  curious  inquiry  into  those  high  and  divine 
relations,  and  other  speculative  subjects,  though  never  so 
great  truths  in  themselves,  tend  little  to  godliness,  and  less 
to  peace ;  which  should  be  the  chief  aim  of  true  christians. 
And  therefore  they  cannot  gratify  that  curiosity  in  them- 
selves, or  others  ;  speculative  truths  being,  in  their  judgment, 
to  be  sparingly  and  tendely  declared,  and  never  to  be  made 
the  measure  and  condition  of  christian  communion.  For 
besides  that  Christ  Jesus  hath  taught  them  other  things, 
the  sad  consequence,  in  all  times,  of  superfining  upon 
Scripture  texts,  do  sufficiently  caution  and  forbid  them. 
Men  are  to  apt  to  let  their  heads  outrun  their  hearts,  and 
their  notion  exceed  their  obedience,  and  their  passion  sup- 
port their  conceits ;  instead  of  a  daily  cross,  a  constant 
watch,  and  an  holy  practice.  The  despised  Quakers  de- 
sire this  may  be  their  care,  and  the  text  their  creed  in  this, 
as  in  all  other  points  :  preferring  self-denial  to  opinion,  and 
charity  to  knowledge,  according  to  that  great  christian 
doctrine.  1  Cor.  xiii. 

"  Pervers.  The  Quakers  deny  Christ  to  be  God. 

"  Princ.  A  most  untrue  and  unreasonable  censure :  for 
their  great  and  characteristic  principle  being  this;  that 
Christ,  as  the  divine  word,  lighteth  the  souls  of  all  men  th^^ 


28 

come  into  the  world,  with  a  spiritual  and  saving  light  ac- 
cording to  John  1.  9.  ch.  8.  xii.  (which  nothing  but  the  Crea- 
tor of  souls  can  do)  it  does  sufficiently  show  they  believe 
him  to  be  God,  for  they  truly  and  expressly  own  him  to  be 
so,  according  to  the  Scripture,  viz  :  in  him  was  hfe,  and 
that  life  the  light  of  man;  and  he  is  God  over  all,  blessed 
for  ever. 

"  Pervers.  The  Quakers  deny  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 

"  Princ.  We  never  taught,  said,  or  held  so  gross  a  thing, 
if  by  human  nature  be  understood  the  manhood  of  Christ 
Jesus.  For  as  we  believe  him  to  be  God  over  all,  blessed 
forever,  so  we  do  as  truly  believe  him  to  be  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham  and  David  after  the  flesh,  and  therefore  truly  and 
properly  man,  like  us  in  all  things  (and  once  subject  to  all 
things  for  our  sakes)  sin  only  excepted. 

"  Pervers.  The  Quakers  expect  to  be  justified  and  saved 
by  the  light  within  them,  and  not  by  the  death  and  suffer- 
ings of  ('hrist. 

"  Princ.  This  is  both  unfairly  and  untruly  stated  and 
charged  upon  us.  But  the  various  sense  of  the  word  jus- 
tification, obliges  me  here  to  distinguish  the  use  of  it;  for 
in  the  natural  and  proper  sense,  it  plainly  implies  making 
men  just,  that  were  unjust ;  godly,  that  were  ungodly;  up- 
right that  were  depraved  ;  as  the  apostle  expresseth  himself, 
1.  Cor.  6.  xi.  and  such  were  some  of  you,  but  ye  are  wash- 
ed, but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  spirit  of  our  God.  In  the 
other  use  of  the  word,  which  some  call  a  law  sense,  it  re- 
fers to  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  and  propitiation  for  sin,  as  in 
Rom.  5.  ix.  Much  more  then  being  now  justified  by  his 
blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him  ;  and  1 
John  ii.  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins  ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world.  Which,  though  a  great  truth,  and 
most  firmly  believed  by  us  ;  yet  no  man  can  be  entitled  to 
the  benefit  thereof,  but  as  they  come  to  believe  and  repent 
of  the  evil  of  their  ways;. and  then  it  may  be  truly  said, 
that  God  justifieth  even  the  ungodly,  ahd  looks  upon  them 
through  Christ,  as  if  they  had  never  sinned  ;  because  their 
sins  are  forgiven  them  for  his  beloved  Son's  sake." 

I  submit  with  confidence  to  this  court,  that  obscure  pas- 
sages, in  the  heat  of  argument,  of  a  controversial  writer, 
afterwards  fully  explained,  do  not  militate  against  us.    I 


i 


29 

have  adverted  to  Penn's  works,  not  because  we  rely  upon 
them,  for  they  are  not  made  an  exhibit  in  the  cause,  but 
with  a  view  to  show  that  when  rightly  understood,  they 
cannot  be  used  as  a  weapon  against  us. 

My  next  position  is,  that  these  doctrines  are,  with  this 
society,  fundamental.  Samuel  Bettle,  in  his  deposition, 
states  them  to  be  so.  One  test  of  fundamental  doctrines 
is,  that  a  disbelief  in  them  constitutes  a  ground  of  disown- 
ment.  And  these  are  proved  to  be  so.  They  are  so  con- 
sidered by  Barclay  on  church  government.*  Upon  this 
point  the  discipline,  as  I  have  already  shown,  is  positive. 

But   these  doctrines,  wherever  they  are  entertained, 
must  be  considered  as  fundamental.     Before  you  could 
treat  them  otherwise,  you  must  change  the  nature  of  man, 
and  his  principles  of  action.     The  idea  that  a  religious  so- 
ciety could  exist  in  harmony,  or  even  exist  at  all,  for  any 
length  of  time,  where  all  sorts  of  opinions  upon  such  sub- 
jects are  allowed,  is  altogether  arcadian  and  visionary. 
You  might  as  well  expect  that  sincere  christians,  and  ma- 
hometans,   could    harmoniously   worship    together   in   a 
mosque.     No  good  could  come  from  such  a  state  of  things, 
but  on  the  contrary,  it  would  have  a  most  demorahzing 
tendency.     One  preacher  would  rise  up,  and  descant  upon 
the  glory  and  majesty  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  christian 
church,  inculcate  the  deep  reverence  and  devotion  that 
were  due  to  his  character.     Another  would  rise,  and  like 
Elias  Hicks,  would  endeavour  to  depreciate  him ;  caution 
his  hearers  against  relying  too  much  upon  him;  urge  them 
to  endeavor  to  rise  up  to  an  equality  with  him,  and  to  cast 
away  the  Scriptures  as  mere  props,  that  can  aid  the  chris- 
tian only  in  the  infancy  of  his  spiritual  life.     What  would 
be  the  effect  of  such  contradictory  exhibitions  1  Would  it 
not  degrade  the  whole  system?  Would  it  not  infuse  into  the 
society,  if  persisted  in,  a  universal  scepticism,  and  spread 
among  the  youth  a  contempt  and  disregard  for  all  religi- 
ous sentiments?  Or  rather,  would  it  not,  eventually,  as  it 
has  done  in  the  present  instance,  involve  the  society  in 
confusion  and  conflict,  and  lead  to  a  final  separation.  Such 
must  in  all  cases  be  its  effects;  and  while  this  view  of  the 
subject  shows  that  these  doctrines  are  fundamental,  where- 
ever  they  are  entertained,  it  shows  at  the  same  time,  thaf 
this  society  never  could  have  tolerated  the  broad  latitude 

♦Page,  53, 59,  and  the  declaration  of  faith  appended  to  the  catechisin,p.ll, 
4* 


30 

of  doctrine,  upon  the  Utopian  principles  contended  for  on 
the  other  side.  The  unity  and  harmony  upon  which 
they  delight  to  expatiate,  would  have  lasted  about  as  long 
as  the  "  Orthodox"  and  "  Hicksites"  continued  together, 
after  Elias  Hicks  let  in  upon  them  his  flood  of  new  light. 

I  now  propose  to  show  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  hold 
the  doctrines  ascribed  to  them  in  the  answer  of  Joseph 
Hendrickson.  In  that  answer  they  are  thus  stated:  "  The 
"  Hicksite"  party  aforesaid  do  not  adopt  and  believe  in  the 
above  mentioned  doctrines;  but  entertain  opinions  entirely 
and  absolutely  repugnant  and  contrary  thereto,"  (alluding 
to  the  three  doctrines  in  question.)  In  regard  to  the  first 
religious  doctrine  above  named. 

"  Although  the  society  of  Friends  have  seldom  made 
use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in  the  existence 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
That  the  Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh;  that  there  is 
one  God,  and  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things ;  that  there 
is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  all  things  were  made, 
who  was  glorified  with  the  Father  before  the  world  began, 
who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever ;  that  there  is  one 
Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the 
leader,  and  sanctifier,  and  comforter  of  his  people,  and 
that  these  three  are  one,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the 
Spirit;  that  the  principal  difference  between  the  people 
called  Quakers,  and  the  other  protestant  triniiarian  sects, 
in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  is,  tiiat  the  latter 
attach  the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three,  as  what 
thev  consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from  the  doctrines 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  The  people 
called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  considering  it  a  mystery, 
beyond  finite,  human  conception,  take  up  the  doctrine  as 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not  con- 
sidered themselves  as  warranted  in  making  deductions, 
however  specious. 

"  The  people  called  Quakers  have  aKvays  believed  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  atonement ;  that  the  divine  and  human 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour  were  united ;  that  thus 
united,  he  suffered;  and  that  through  his  sufferings,  death 
and  resurrection,  he  atoned  for  the  sins  of  men.  That  the 
Son  of  God,  in  the  fulness  of  time  took  flesh,  became  per- 
fect man,  according  to  the  flesh,  descended  and  came  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David  ;  that  being  with  God  from 
all  eternity,  being  himself  God,  and  also  in  time  partaking 


31 

of  the  nature  of  man,  through  him  is  the  goodness  and  love^ 
of  God  conveyed  to  mankind,  and  that  by  him  again  man 
receiveth  and  partaketh  of  these  mercies ;  that  Christ  took 
upon  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  his  holy  body  and  blood 
M'as  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world. 

*'  The  people  called  Quakers  believe,  that  the  Scriptures 
are  given  by  inspiration,  and  when  rightly  interpreted,  are 
unerring  guides;  and  to  use  the  language  adopted  by  them, 
they  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ.  They  believe  that  the  spirit  still  operates  upon 
the  souls  of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so 
operate,  it  furnishes  the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the 
Scriptures  proceeding  from  it  must  be  secondary  in  refer- 
ence to  this  primary  source,  whence  they  proceed;  but  in- 
asmuch as  the  dictates  of  the  spirit  are  always  true  and 
uniform,  all  ideas  and  views  which  any  person  may  enter- 
tain repugnant  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
are  unerring,  must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such 
are  the  doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient 
society  of  Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still 
entertained  by  the  "Orthodox"  party  aforesaid,  to  which 
party  this  defendant  belongs.  That  these  doctrines  are 
with  the  said  religious  society  fundamental,  and  any  indi- 
vidual entertaining  sentiments  and  opinions  contrary  to  all 
or  any  of  the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is  held  not  to  be 
in  the  same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or  people 
called  Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly." 

If  this  charge  be  true,  the  "  Hicksites"  unquestionably, 
are  not  Quakers  in  religious  belief,  whatever  they  may  be 
in  manners  and  external  appearance;  they  are,  on  the 
contrary,  the  antipodes  of  them;  they  are  completely  uni- 
tarian. I  do  not  mean  to  dispute  their  legal  right  to  be 
so;  they  are,  as  unitarians,  entitled  to  protection  in  the 
enjoyment  of  their  religious  belief,  publicly  and  practically, 
under  the  constitution  of  their  country.  All  I  mean  to  con- 
tend for,  is,  that  as  unitarians,  they  are  not  Quakers  in 
doctrine ;  they  are  not  in  law,  entitled  to  take  with  them, 
in  their  new  unitarian  belief,  the  property  which  has  been, 
by  donation  or  otherwise,  devoted,  in  trust,  for  the  society 
of  Friends.  To  all  legal  purposes,  they  would  have  been 
just  as  much  entitled  to  it  if  they  had  turned  mahometans: 
I  contend  that  this,  as  a  rule  of  property,  is  general  and 
uniform.     If  a  unitarian  society,  where  that  mode  of  wor- 


32 

ship  is  recognised  by  law,  should  hold  property,  a  portion 
of  the  members  becoming  trinitarians,  could  not  carry  the 
property  with  them. 

The  charge  which  I  have  just  read  from  the  answer  of 
Hendrickson,  was  contained  in  the  original  bill.  It  was, 
of  course,  stated  in  the  bill  of  interpleader,  and  the  defend- 
ant, Decow,  claiming  to  be  treasurer  of  the  school  fund, 
under  the  "  Hicksite"  preparative  meeting,  was  called  upon 
to  answer  this  charge,  he  has  not  answered  it,- but  has  re- 
fused to  disclose.  All  the  witnesses  called  on  the  other 
side,  members  of  their  new  yearly  meeting,  and  in  the  ha- 
bit of  attending  their  different  meetings  for  worship,  and 
hence,  fully  acquainted  with  the  religious  doctrines  they 
entertain  and  inculcate,  refuse  to  disclose  upon  that  point. 
The  charge  of  unitarianism  thus  solemnly  made,  is  unde- 
nied,  either  by  answer  or  by  proof. 

Allow  me,  for  a  few  moments,  to  consider  their  excuses 
for  this  concealment,  and  in  the  next  place,  its  effects  upon 
the  evidence  in  this  cause.  They  excuse  themselves  for 
not  divulging  their  doctrines  on  the  ground,  that  they  are 
not  bound  to  spread  their  spiritual  sentiments  before  a  tem- 
poral tribunal ;  that  such  a  tribunal  has  no  cognizance  of 
religious  doctrines,  and  that  if  compelled  to  account  upon 
such  subjects,  there,  it  amounts  to  religious  persecution. 
But  upon  this  subject,  they  appear  to  me,  to  be  entirely  too 
refined  and  sublimated.  They  are  for  vaulting  in  the  air. 
They  seem  to  forget  that  even  in  religious  concerns,  while 
they  are  preparing  for  heaven,  they  are  upon  the  earth 
and  bound  to  it,  by  a  force  of  attraction  which  they 
cannot  resist.  I  repeat  again,  that  I  am  an  advocate  for 
religious  liberty  to  its  broadest  extent,  except  in  those  in- 
stances where  bigotry  or  superstition  may  encroach  upon 
the  safety  of  government,  or  the  wholesome  restraint  of 
municipal  law.  Even  there,  I  would  have  a  government 
to  yield  much  to  the  spirit  of  religious  liberty.  It  is  mat- 
ter of  history,  that  the  early  Friends  were  the  pioneers 
of  religious  toleration.  Even  the  early  reformers,  who 
were  anxious  for  liberty  of  thought,  were  for  stopping  short 
at  the  point  to  which  their  ideas  of  reformation  in  religious 
doctrine  and  dicipline  carried  them.  Philosophers,  in  those 
times,  often  dreamt  of  a  greater  latitude  of  sentiment  and 
action,  but  they  were  only  the  day-dreams  of  philosophical 
speculation.  If  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  Utopia,  was  for 
allowing  the  utmost  breadth  of  religious  freedom,  he  de- 


33 

parted  very  essentially  from  his  principles,  when  he  was 
called  upon  to  act.  But  liberty  of  conscience,  consists  in 
the  right  of  an  individual  in  a  society,  to  enjoy  publicly  his 
own  religious  views  and  mode  of  worship,  unmolested  by 
temporal  power.  This  was  so  understood  by  the  early 
Friends.  A  religious  society  must  have  property,  devoted, 
in  trust,  to  their  purposes,  and  to  enjoy  true  liberty  under 
the  law,  their  property  must  be  protected  by  the  law,  not 
merely  as  to  the  legal  estate,  but  also  as  to  the  trust.  How 
can  tlie  law  protect  this  trust,  if  a  part  of  the  society, 
changing  their  doctrines  and  getting  possession  of  the  pro- 
perty in  the  confusion  of  religious  dissention,  can  wrap 
themselves  up  in  all  the  darkness  of  the  Eleusynian  mys- 
teriesj?  To  receive  the  protection  of  law,  they  must  subject 
themselves  to  the  inquiry  and  investigation  necessarily  in- 
cidental to  such  protection.  True  liberty  does  not  consist 
in  the  power  of  concealment,  in  order  to  hold  property 
devoted  in  trust  to  the  support  of  one  set  of  doctrines,  and 
to  misapply  it  to  the  support  of  an  entirely  different  set  of 
doctrines.  This  is  licentiousness,  not  liberty.  It  is  tvrongy 
not  right.  If  the  object  of  this  inquiry  was  to  punish  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  for  their  religious  opinions,  they  would 
then  have  an  excuse  for  this  concealment.  But  when  the 
object  is  simply  to  ascertain  which  of  these  two  divisions 
is  the  true  society,  when  it  is  manifest  that  both  cannot  be : 
which  of  these  two  preparative  meetings  is  the  true  pre- 
parative meeting,  in  order  to  settle  a  mere  question  of  pro- 
perty, it  is  idle  to  talk  of  persecution.  It  would  be  dis- 
graceful to  the  law,  to  leave  such  a  question,  or  any  other 
question  of  property  unsettled,  and  in  order  to  settle  it,  the 
court  must  have  the  power  of  inquiry. 

Their  next  pretence  for  refusing  to  disclose  is,  that  this 
society  has  no  fundamental  doctrines,  and  that  the  inquiry 
is  immaterial,  and  can  have  no  effect  upon  the  cause.  This 
is  not  true,  and  is  admitted  by  themselves  not  to  be  true ; 
for  they  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  divine 
light  upon  the  soul  to  be  fundamental.  This  society  does 
not  exhibit  then,  even  according  to  their  own  admissions 
and  views,  the  strange  anomaly  of  a  christian  community 
without  any  settled  religious  principles.  It  is  true,  that 
they  deny  the  three  doctrines  in  question  to  be  fundamen- 
tal ;  but  when  we  assert  it  and  they  deny  it,  it  presents  an 
issue  to  be  inquired  into,  not  to  be  concealed.  Otherwise, 
how  is  the  point  to  be  settled  1    It  surely  cannot  be  se^ 


34 

riously  pretended  that  such  points,  involving  important 
questions  of  property,  should  be  left  unsettled. 

Contrast,  I  beseech  you,  the  conduct  of  the  "  Hicksite" 
party,  with  the  proceedings  of  the  early  Friends.  These 
men  live  in  an  age  and  in  a  country,  where  religious  free- 
dom, and  every  other  sort  of  freedom  is  enjoyed.  Where 
they  need  have  no  apprehensions  from  religious  persecu- 
tion. They,  on  the  other  hand,  lived  in  an  age  of  persecu- 
tion, and  were  actually  persecuted  for  the  peculiar  religious 
views  which  they  entertained  on  some  points.  Day  after 
day,  they  saw  their  companions  dragged  to  the  dungeon. 
What  course  did  they  take?  Did  they  study  to  conceal 
their  doctrines  1  Did  they,  tortoise-like,  close  themselves 
in  the  shell  ?  Were  they  ashamed  of  the  light  ?  No.  They 
came  out  boldly:  avowed  their  doctrines  in  the  presence 
of  the  crowned  heads  of  the  day.  They  presented  them- 
selves before  the  parliament,  before  committees  of  the  par- 
liament, solemnly  and  publicly  exhibited  to  them  their  reli- 
gious views,  and  obtained  relief  and  privilege  asatrinitarian 
community  of  christians,  under  the  toleration  laws. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  effect  which  this  studied  conceal- 
ment on  the  other  side  ought  to  have,  as  negative  evidence 
upon  this  cause.  And  here  I  give  them  credit  for  sincerity 
in  the  opinion,  that  they  are  not  bound  to  disclose  their  re- 
ligions views  on  these  doctrinal  points.  I  give  their  coun- 
sel credit  for  sincerity  in  advising  them  so,  though  I  cannot 
concur  in  opinion  with  them.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind 
that  they  do  not  pretend  that  their  conscience  will  not 
allow  them  to  disclose,  only  that  they  are  not  bound  to 
disclose.  They  do,  in  fact,  disclose  some  of  their  doc- 
trines in  the  answer,  and  in  the  evidence.  Why  then  do 
they  not  make  a  fair  and  full  developement  upon  these 
three  doctrines  in  question?  Manifestly  because  they  did 
not  think  it  politic  to  do  so.  Why  do  they  disclose  that 
the  influence  of  divine  illumination  is  one  of  their  doc- 
trines? Manifestly  because  they  think  it  politic  to  go  thus 
far.  Their  conscience  then,  seems  to  be  measured  by 
their  views  of  policy. 

Tt  is  a  well  settled  rule  of  evidence,  that  when  a  matter 
lies  more  peculiarly  in  the  knowledge  of  one  party,  and 
he  does  not  explain  it,  every  presumption  is  raised  against 
him.  In  Whitney  against  Sterling  and  others,*  a  question 
arose  whether  Brown  was  a  partner  of  the  firm  sued. 
♦  H  Johnson's  Reports,  215,  and  see  I  Caines  Reports,  185, 


35 

(Jeneral  reputation  was  given  in  evidence  as  to  the  part- 
nership, and  as  to  the  members  of  the  firm,  and  the  defen- 
dants were  noticed  to  produce  the  articles  of  co-partner- 
ship, which  they  declined  doing.  The  court  say,  "  this  re- 
fusal afforded  strong  grounds  of  suspicion,  that  if  pro- 
duced, they  would  have  shown  that  all  the  defendants  were 
partners,  and  the  jury  would  have  been  warranted  in  draw- 
ing every  reasonable  inference  against  the  defendants  by 
reason  of  such  refusal."  To  apply  the  principle  of  this 
decision  to  the  present  case.  Here  is  property  attached 
to  a  preparative  meeting  of  Friends.  They  divide  on  the 
question  of  doctrine,  and  form  two  preparative  meetings. 
A  question  arises  which  is  the  true  one,  to  which  the  pro- 
perty ought  to  be  attached.  Hendrickson  says,  his  meet- 
ing is  the  true  one,  because  they  hold  certain  religious  doc- 
trines, which  he  proves  to  be  the  established  doctrines  of 
that  religious  society,  and  that  the  other  is  not  the  true  one, 
because  they  hold  doctrines  directly  repugnant :  unitarian 
doctrines :  that  they  have,  in  fact,  changed  from  trinita- 
rian  to  unitarian.  Whether  they  do  or  do  not  hold  such 
doctrines :  whether  such  change  has,  or  has  not  taken 
place,  they  must  know.  They  come  forward  as  witnesses, 
to  prove  other  facts,  but  do  not  say  what  are  their  senti- 
ments on  these  points.  When  we  cross-examine  them, 
they  refuse  to  answer.  They  say  they  are  not  bound  to 
answer.  This  is  not  true ;  because  witnesses  should  an- 
swer all  material  questions,  which  will  not  subject  them  to 
punishment  or  disgrace :  but  admit  they  were  not  bound 
to  answer  these  questions.  The  defendants,  in  the  case 
cited,  were  not  bound  to  produce  the  articles  of  co-part- 
nership, and  in  the  language  of  that  court,  J  say,  the  refu- 
sal of  the  "  Hicksite"  witnesses  to  answer,  affords  strong 
ground  of  suspicion,  and  warrants  the  court  in  drawing 
every  reasonable  inference  against  them. 

But,  fortunately,  in  this  case,  we  are  not  dependent  upon 
the  opposite  party  for  information  as  to  their  doctrines. 
We  have  laid  before  the  court,  a  train  of  evidence,  which 
shows  conclusively  that  they  do  hold  the  doctrines  we  as- 
cribe to  them. 

The  dispute  between  the  parties,  arose,  originally  about 
doctrine.  Decow,  in  his  answer,  admits  that  there  is  a 
difference  of  doctrine  between  them.  Whitall,  in  his  evi- 
dence, states  the  origin  of  this  dispute.  He  refers  to  the 
letters  of  Paul  and  Amicus,  in  which  a  pretended  Friend, 


36 

tinder  cover  of  vindicating  the  doctrines  of  Quakerism, 
advanced  unitarian  sentiments.  The  society  of  Friends 
became  alarmed,  lest  the  public,  under  these  circumstances, 
should  suppose  that  they  really  held  such  sentiments.  A 
paper  was  prepared  for  publication,  consisting  exclusively 
of  extracts  from  the  writings  of  ancient  Friends;*  and 
setting  forth  the  doctrines  which  are  now  maintained  by 
the  "  Orthodox."  The  publication  of  it  was  opposed:  and 
opposed  too,  by  those  who  have  since  seceded.  What  is 
their  pretence  for  this  opposition  ?  Why,  that  it  was  an 
effort  to  palm  a  creed  upon  their  church.  Yet  it  is 
proved  to  have  been  the  custom,  and  is  unquestionably 
true,  that  this  society  do,  when  exposed  to  the  danger  of 
misconstruction,  by  the  pubHc,  or  under  any  other  circum- 
stances rendering  it  expedient  to  do  so,  publish  their  sen- 
timents. They  might  as  well  pretend  to  say,  that  Fox, 
their  founder,  was  imposing  npon  them  a  creed,  when  he 
wrote  his  letter  to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes :  or  that  the 
declaration  of  their  faith  to  the  British  parliament,  was  a 
creed,  and  exceptionable  on  that  ground.  The  demon  of 
persecution,  which  in  this  country,  can  exist  only  in  ima- 
gination, seems  constantly  to  haunt  them.  The  real  secret 
of  their  antipathy  to  this  paper,  was,  not  that  it  contained 
a  creed,  but  that  the  ancient  doctrines  of  their  writers, 
from  whose  works  it  was  extracted,  had  become  unpa- 
latable to  them  of  late. 

The  publication  which  that  party  sent  forth  from  their 
private  meeting,  while  the  yearly  meeting  of  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  twenty-seven  was  in  session,  admits  that  a  differ- 
ence in  doctrine  led  to  the  controversy.  They  there  tell  us, 
that  doctrines  believed  by  one  party  to  be  smind  and  edifying, 
are  by  the  other  deemed  unsotmd  and  spurious.  Thomas  Evans 
testifies  that  all  their  disputes  were  about  religious  doctrines. 

What  were  these  disputed  doctrines  ?  There  Is  no  pre- 
tence by  any  body,  that  any  others  were  disputed  than 
those  now  in  question.  Our  party  come  forward  openly, 
and  avow  their  sentiments,  in  regard  to  these  disputed  doc- 
trines. If  one  party,  as  they  there  admit,  believes  certain 
doctrines  sound  and  edifying,  and  the  other  believes  them 
unsound  and  spurious,  we  have  a  right  to  infer  from  their 
own  publication,  that  they  oppose  the  doctrines  in  question, 
unless  they  show  that  there  were  other  doctrines  in  dis- 
pute between  them,  to  which  they  refer. 

*  Exhibit  No.  12,  in  this  cause. 


37 

Our  witnesses,  Parsons,  William  Jackson,  Whitall,  Wil- 
lis, all  testify  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  hold  the  doctrines 
now  ascribed  to  them,  and  no  one  on  their  side  denies  it. 
We  have  proved  that  their  preachers  hold  forth  the  doc- 
trines that  we  ascribe  to  them.  Thomas  Evans  enume- 
rates some  of  them :  Elias  Hicks,  Hawkshurst,  Mott,  Ed- 
ward Hicks,  Wetherald,  Comiy  and  Lower,  all  "  Hicksite" 
preachers,  teaching  these  doctrines,  and  with  acceptance 
and  satisfaction  to  that  party. 

We  have  several  volumes  of  their  sermons,  which  have 
been  made  exhibits  in  the  cause.  The  most  prominent  of 
these  preachers,  whose  sermons  are  contained  in  them,  is 
Elias  Hicks.  Speaking  of  the  Scriptures,*  he  says,  "  It  is 
the  best  of  all  letter  that  was  ever  written  on  earth,  and 
after  all,  it  is  nothing  but  letter.  It  is  that  which  the  wis- 
dom of  man  has  devised,  and  which  he  can  work  in,  for 
the  sake  of  his  own  aggrandizement." 

f  "  Now  the  bookrce  read  in,  says  '  search  the  Scriptures,* 
but  this  is  incorrect:  we  must  all  see  it  is  incorrect,"  &c. 
It  has  been  asserted  that  Elias  Hicks  never  disputed  the 
infallibility  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.     Yet,  he  here 
charges  them  with  inaccuracy,  and  with  being  devised  by 
man's  wisdom.     He  has  denied  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  atonement.     Look  at  this  passage :  J  "  If  we  be- 
lieve that  God  is  equal  and  righteous  in  all  his  ways ;  that 
he  has  made  of  one  blood,  all  the  families  that  dwell  upon 
the  earth,  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  be  partial,  and 
therefore,  he  has  been  as  willing  to  reveal  his  will  to  every 
creature,  as  he  was  to  our  first  parents,  to  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the  apostles.     He  never  can 
set  any  of  these  above  us  ;  because,  if  he  did,  he  would  be 
partial.     His  love  is  the  same  for  all ;  and  as  no  man  can 
save  his  brother,  or  give  a  ransom  for  his  soul,  therefore 
the  Almighty  must  be   the  only  deliverer  of  his  people." 
No  man  can  be  so  dull  of  apprehension  as  to   misunder- 
stand this.     Elias  Hicks  is  at  liberty  to  believe,  and  his 
adherents  may  believe,  that  Christ  is  on  a  level  with  Mo- 
ses and  the  prophets,  and  with  the  first  parents  of  man- 
kind, and  that  he  is  not  set  above  us :  that  not  he,  but  the 
Almighty  alone,  is  the  true  deliverer.     I  come  to  the  bar 
of  this  court,  not  to  censure  them  or  their  doctrines,  but 
as  the  advocate  of  my  clients,  upon  this  question  of  pro- 

*  Hicks'  Sermons,  95.  t  lb.  314.  %  lb.  292. 

5 


38 

perty,  I  say,  and  I  trust  I  have  proved,  that  these  are  not 
the  doctrines  of  Quakerism.*  Whether  these  printed 
books  of  sermons,  have  ever  been  formally  adopted  by  the 
yearly  meeting  of  the  "  Hicksites,"  I  cannot  pretend  to 
say.  But  we  do  not  give  them  in  evidence  as  the  produc- 
tions of  private  individuals,  which  might  require  such 
adoption,  to  render  them  evidence  of  the  general  senti- 
ments of  the  society.  They  are  collections  of  sermons,  of 
public  preachers,  holding  forth  these  sentiments  among  them, 
without  censure,  and  with  acceptance.  If  they  had  found 
fault  with  these  sentiments,  it  would  have  been  the  duty 
of  their  elders  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  The  public  and 
acceptable  preaching  of  their  ministers,  may  surely  be 
taken  as  fair  evidence  of  the  religious  sentiments  of  their  ^ 
people. 

But  Elias  Hicks  is  too  conspicuous  a  character  to  be 
hastily  passed  over.  He  is  their  prime  mover.  This  is 
notorious.  His  station  as  such,  is  just  as  well  defined,  as 
that  of  Luther  or  Calvin,  Zwingle  or  Fox.  They  say,  to 
be  sure,  that  he  is  not  their  head;  because  they  consider 
Christ  their  head.  But  that  he  is  a  most  able  coadjutor, 
and  that  he  took  the  lead  in  broaching  those  doctrines,  in 
respect  to  which  they  admit  they  differ  from  their  former 
associates,  they  cannot  pretend  to  deny.  Abraham  Lower 
acknowledges  in  his  evidence,  that  he  was  a  faithful  and 
accepted  preacher.  In  the  early  part  of  his  career,  as  a 
unitarian  preacher,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  his  friend  Thomas 
Willis,  and  made  an  exhibit  in  this  cause.  This  letter  is 
written  with  an  ingenuity  and  management  which  would 
have  done  no  discredit  to  the  oratorical  skill  of  Demos- 
thenes or  Cicero.  He  commences  by  stating,  that  for  fifty 
years  and  upwards,  he  has  believed  in  the  miraculous  con- 
ception. But  he  had  lately  been  examining  the  ancient 
history  of  the  church,  and  found  that  many  thought  other- 
wise. Before  this,  he  had  read  the  Scriptures  often,  but 
under  the  prejudice  of  a  traditional  belief,  and  therefore, 
never  doubted  it.  But  since  his  late  examination  of  ancient 
history,  where  he,  no  doubt,  had  dipped  into  the  arian  con- 
troversy, he  read  the  Scriptures  again,  and  although  he 
found  there  was  considerably  mare  scriptural  evidence  for 

*  Mr.  Wood  here  read  a  number  of  passages  from  the  sermons  of  Eliaa 
and  Edward  Hicks,  and  Thomas  Wetherald,  from  the  printed  volumes 
called  the  "  Quaker,"  Hicks'  Sermons,  and  the  sermons  of  Elias  and 
Edward  Hicks,  to  prove  the  same  points. 


39 

his  being  the  son  o^  Joseph  than  otherwise;  still  it  has  not 
changed  his  belief;  as  tradition  is  a  mighty  bulwark. 
Strange !  The  less  evidence  prevails  over  the  greater ! 
And  why  1  The  prejudice  of  tradition  is  too  strong  for  him. 
I  have  heard  of  men  being  under  the  influence  of  preju- 
dice; but  when  they  discover  the  prejudice,  and  seethe 
preponderating  evidence  on  the  other  side,  there  is  an  end 
of  it;  they  are  then  freed  from  their  shackles.  But  it  would 
not  do  for  him  to  come  out  boldly  as  a  unitarian — it  would 
have  aroused  his  friend.  To  continue  his  influence,  he 
stijl  professes  his  old  doctrines,  and  he  endeavours  to  in^ 
slil  his  principles  indirectly,  that  his  friend  may  adopt  them 
as  his  own,  and  as  not  appearing  to  have  taken  them  from 
him.  In  his  letters  to  Phoebe  Willis,  and  Dr.  Shoemaker, 
he  denies  the  atonement  most  unequivocally.  These  let- 
ters are  important  in  two  points  of  view.  While  they  de- 
velope  the  principles  of  Elias  Hicks,  they  show  that  these 
are  not  the  principles  of  Quakerism  in  which  he  had  been 
educated. 

A  slight  examination  of  his  sermons,  will  show  you  that 
he  is  a  visionary  man.  With  a  mind  more  active  than 
judicious,  he  is  constantly  striking  out  new  conceits.  With 
a  temperament  more  elastic  than  firm,  he  embodies  these 
conceits  to  his  own  satisfaction,  with  all  the  reality  of  solid 
doctrine.  Christ,  in  his  opinion,  as  far  as  we  can  collect 
his  opinion,  was  a  man  inspired  with  the  same  light  with 
■which  all  other  men  are  inspired,  who  may,  if  they  choose, 
rise  to  an  equality  with  him.  Neither  He,  nor  Moses,  nor 
any  of  the  prophets,  was  above  us.  That  would  have  been 
partial  and  unjust  in  his  opinion.  Christ  was  a  saviour, 
but  he  was  only  to  save  the  Israelites  by  healing  their  dis- 
eases. His  atonement  was  of  the  same  healing  character, 
but  to  the  Jews  only.  The  Scriptures  are  useful  though 
incorrect;  but  they  are  only  useful  as  props  in  the  infancy 
of  spiritual  being,  which  must  soon  be  brushed  away,  or 
they  will  destroy  that  spirituality.  Among  other  things, 
he  has  made  the  discovery,  that  spirit  can  only  beget 
spirit.  He  does  not  tell  us,  however,  in  what  way  lie  disr 
covered,  that  spirit  could  even  beget  spirit.  It  does  not 
seem,  for  a  moment,  to  occur  to  him,  that  such  subjects 
are  beyond  human  comprehension  and  inquiry,  and  that 
man  becomes  presumptuous  when  he  undertakes  to  be 
wise  in  such  matters  beyond  what  is  revealed.  His  ima- 
gination has  onl^  to  coin  an  id§a,  and  his  ?ea|  at  once 


40 

gives  it  currency.  I  have  no  doubt,  that  in  private  life, 
his  character  was  amiable  and  unexceptionable.  But  his 
virtues,  like  Csesar's,  have  been  instrumental  to  a  success- 
ful innovation.  Coming  out,  heated,  from  the  steam  of  the 
arian  controversy,  he  has  cast  a  firebrand  into  this  hereto- 
fore peaceful  society,  and  spread  a  devastation,  which  a 
hundred  such  men  could  not  repair. 

Let  me  not  be  understood,  as  meaning  to  censure  Elias 
Hicks  for  his  religious  opinions.  His  right  to  hold  them, 
was  a  matter,  which  lay  between  his  conscience  and  his 
God.  It  is  his  deportment  towards  this  society  in  the 
practical  assertion  of  those  religious  opinions,  formed  by 
him  in  his  declining  years,  of  which,  as  the  advocate  of 
my  clients,  it  is  my  duty  to  complain.  The  course  which 
Elias  Hicks  ought  to  have  taken,  was  a  very  obvious  one ; 
the  road  he  had  to  travel,  was  direct  and  plain  before  him. 
When  he  adopted  and  undertook  to  preach  those  new  doc- 
trines, which  he  thus  shadowed  forth  in  his  epistles  to  his 
friends,  and  which,  in  those  epistles,  lie  distinctly  admits, 
are  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  Quakerism,  and  the 
traditions  in  which  he  had  been  educated,  he  ought  to  have 
come  out  from  the  bosom  of  that  society.  He  might  then 
have  openly  avowed  his  doctrines,  and  made  proselytes 
to  his  new  system— the  desire  to  do  which,  is  so  natural 
to  the  mind  of  man.  If,  by  pursuing  this  open  and  manly 
course,  he  had  gathered  around  him  a  new  sect,  it  would 
have  been  fair  and  lawful,  and  no  man  would  have  had  a 
right  to  complain,  how  much  soever  his  early  associates, 
who  should  still  adhere  to  the  traditions  in  which  they  had 
been  educated,  might  have  lamented  his  course.  He  would 
then  have  enjoyed  full  freedom  of  thought  and  action, 
without  encroaching  upon  the  just  rights  of  a  religious 
society,  whose  principles  he  had  abandoned.  But  when- 
ever a  member  of  such  a  society  changes  his  religious 
opinions,  and  still  artfully  endeavours  to  continue  in  it,  for 
the  purpose  of  more  effectually  making  converts  to  his 
new  doctrines,  the  error  of  his  course  will  be  showm  in 
the  demoralizing  consequences  flowing  from  it.  What 
subterfuges  and  evasions  is  he  obliged  to  resort  to!  What 
shifts  and  expedients !  Sometimes  boldly  advancing  his 
views  among  those  who  have  become  prepared  to  receive 
them.  Sometimes  denouncing  them  and  broaching  the 
old  doctrines  in  which  he  had  been  educated.  Sometimes 
explaining  them  away,  or  endeavouring  to  reconcile  con- 


41 

tradictions  ! !  Detraction  and  discord  are  next  witnessed. 
The  old  become  disgusted  with  the  exhibition  :  the  young 
ridicule  the  whole  as  the  offspring  of  hypocrisy,  artifice, 
and  self'interest :  a  prostration  of  morality  and  religion 
follows  in  the  train.  In  religious  matters,  as  in  every 
thing  else,  licentiousness,  which  is  nothing  else  than  a 
spirit  of  encroachment  under  the  specious  name  of  liberty, 
is  prejudicial  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  mankind. 

Having  finished  last  evening  what  I  had  to  say  upon 
the  subject  of  the  departure  by  the  "  Hicksites"  from  the 
fundamental  religious  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  they  have  seceded  from" 
the  rule  and  government  of  the  church. 

They  charge  upon  our  party,  a  violation  of  the  discipline 
in  commencing  this  suit.  It  is  in  evidence  that  Thomas  L. 
Shotwell,  the  defendant  to  our  bill,  was  not  a  member  of  the 
society  at  the  time  of  the  secession.  If  he  has  since  the  seces- 
sion been  admitted  into  their  church,  we  have  not  in  thus 
instituting  the  suit  violated  the  principles  of  this  society, 
because  as  we  say  they  are  not,  as  unitarians,  in  the  same 
faith  with  the  society  of  Friends.  There  was  no  other  mode 
of  getting  redress.  Having  withdrawn  themselves  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  regular  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia, 
and  all  the  subordinate  meetings  of  discipline,  it  was  vain  to 
seek  redress  there  against  Shotwell,  for  he  of  course  would 
not  submit  to  their  autliority.  Could  he  expect  us  to  follow 
him  into  their  new  and  irregular  meetings  ?  meetings  ori- 
ginating, as  they  admit,  in  a  revolution,  and  which  we  do 
not  recognize?  Their  complaints  then  are  founded  on 
principles  of  most  convenient  application,  for  themselves, 
inasmuch  as  they  would  close  the  door  against  all  redress. 

There  are  some  other  pretensions  set  up  on  the  other 
side,  incidental  to  this  question  of  secession. 

They  tell  us  that  there  is  no  head  to  this  church  upon 
earth — no  subordination — no  control  of  one  meeting  over 
another — that  each  preparative  meeting  may  act  for  it- 
self, without  responsibility  to  the  others,  or  to  any  superior 
meeting.  Such  a  state  of  things  is  designated  under  the 
captivating  name  of  a  pure  democracy.  They  figure  to 
themseh^es  a  golden  age  of  religious  liberty. 

I  see  nothing  of  democracy  in  this.     Democracy  admits 

of  regular  organization,  of  a  due  subordination  of  parts  to 

the  whole.     It  admits  of  authority  to  govern,  founded  in 

the  good  of  the  whole.     It  admits  of  subjection,  provided 

5* 


42 

it  be  subjection  to  the  law  and  wholesome  discipline  of  so- 
ciety. But  the  pretensions  set  up  on  the  other  side,  are  of 
an  entirely  different  character.  They  pretend  that  any 
preparative  meeting  with  a  bare  majority,  told  by  the  head, 
composed  of  the  young,  the  thoughtless,  and  inexperienced, 
whose  only  claims  to  religious  or  even  moral  consideration, 
may  be  founded  on  birth-right,  are  at  liberty  at  any  time 
to  set  up  for  themselves,  dissolve  all  connection  with  the 
yearly  meeting,  and  carry  the  property  along  with  them. 
It  might  as  well  be  said,  that  a  county  could  at  any 
moment  detach  itself  from  the  state.  This  I  consider 
not  democracy,  but  rank  jacobinism.  If  Quakers  were  to 
act  on  such  principles,  they  would  be  the  sansculottes  of 
Christianity. 

Having  been  informed  that  the  Quakers  have  no  fixed 
'  religious  principles,  we  are  told  in  the  next  place,  that  they 
have  no  subordination  or  settled  rules  of  government,  and 
that  the  whole  body  may  at  any  time,  legitimately  crum- 
ble into  its  original  moleculas. 

But  we  have  clearly  shown  in  this  case,  that  the  seeds 
of  discord,  are  not  thus  sown  in  the  institutions  of  this  so- 
ciety. On  the  contrary,  they  have  a  system  of  law  and 
.subordination,  and  a  regular  gradation  of  authority.  This 
is  so  stated  in  the  answer  of  Hendrickson,  and  is  proved 
by  his  witnesses.  They  testify  to  a  power  in  the  higher 
meetings  to  lay  dov^'n  the  lower  meetings.  The  accoun- 
tability of  the  lower  to  the  higher  meetings,  is  provided  for 
in  the  book  of  discipline.  Joseph  Whitall  in  his  deposition, 
cites  passages  from  the  English  Discipline  of  similar  im- 
port. John  Gummere  states  various  instances  where 
meetings  had  been  thus  laid  down  by  the  Burlington 
Quarterly  Meeting,  and  Abraham  Lower,  their  witness, 
admits  this  subordination  and  their  subjection  to  the  rules 
of  their  discipline  enacted  in  the  yearly  meeting. 

There  is  then  a  due  subordination  and  subjection  to  rule, 
in  this  society.  The  highest  tribunal  is  the  yearly  meeting, 
which  exercises  a  general  supervisory  control  over  the 
whole,  completely  analogous  to  the  controlling  and  super- 
intending power  of  the  general  synods  of  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed Churches,  and  the  general  assembly  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church. 

The  opposite  party  further  pretend  that  they  are  justi- 
fied in  the  course  they  have  taken,  on  account  of  the  arbi- 
trary conduct  of  the  orthodox,  upon  the  right  of  revolu- 


43 

tion.  Their  grievances  resemble  in  their  opinion,  those  of 
the  patriots  of  our  great  revohjtion.  They  are  the  whigs 
of  Quakerism.  This  is  a  most  extraordinary  ground  for 
individuals  to  take,  who  h've  under  a  government  of  laws, 
which  is  able  and  willing  to  protect  them  if  they  are  ag- 
grieved. 

But  these  complaints  are  unfounded  in  fact.  None 
existed  until  these  false  doctrines  were  broached.  They 
commenced  with  the  preparation  of  the  paper  which  they 
have  called  a  creed,  which  I  have  already  considered  and 
which  they  could  seriously  object  to,  only  on  the  ground 
that  it  opposed  the  unitarian  doctrines  of  Amicus,  doc- 
trines which  were  put  forth  about  the  time  that  Elias  Hicks 
began  to  shake  off  the  tradition  in  which  he  had  been 
brought  up,  the  mighty  bulwark,  as  he  terms  it,  and  com- 
menced his  new  career  as  a  unitarian  preacher.  Their 
next  complaint  of  arbitrary  conduct  is  levelled  against  the 
elders  in  Philadelphia.  Here  again  we  trace  the  source 
of  this  irritation  to  the  new  doctrines.  Before  this,  all  was 
peace  and  harmony.  But  Elias  Hicks  was  spreading  his 
new  unitarian  lights  among  the  churches  of  Philadelphia. 
The  elders  felt  it  their  duty  to  interpose.  If  false  doctrines 
are  disseminated,  will  it  be  pretended  that  they  are  to  lie 
idle,  and  not  endeavour  to  arrest  them  1  The  elders  have 
a  special  superintendence  over  their  meetings.  Will  it  be 
pretended,  that  clothed  as  they  are  with  this  superintending 
power,  that  standing  upon  the  watch  towers  to  give  alarm, 
when  there  is  cause  of  alarm,  they  ought  to  connive  at  the 
corruption  of  their  churches  by  the  promulgation  of  unsound 
doctrines  ?  Suppose  a  preacher  should  go  about  among 
them,  and  deny  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  influence 
of  the  divine  light  upon  the  soul,  should  this  be  acquiesced 
in  ?  It  is  the  same  in  effect  when  any  other  fundamental 
doctrine  is  denied. 

Their  next  complaint  is  on  the  ground  that  committees 
were  appointed  to  go  down  among  the  churches  and  en- 
deavour to  stem  the  current  of  these  new  doctrines.  Hal- 
liday  Jackson  himself  admits  the  practice  of  appointing 
such  committees,  when  there  is  a  serious  departure  in  doc- 
trine or  discipline  which  may  call  for  it,  but  he  thinks  it  was 
not  justifiable  in  this  instance,  because  there  were  parties 
in  the  church.  Now  I  submit  to  the  court,  that  I  have 
already  shown  that  false  doctrines  were  afloat,  in  regard 
toJ!^uakerism,  upon  points  radical  and  fundamental,  and  if 


44 

so,  the  appointment  of  these  committees  was  perfectly  jus- 
tifiable, nay  farther,  it  was  absolutely  incumbent  upon 
them  to  make  the  appointment. 

Their  only  remaining  topic  of  complaint  relates  to  the 
choice  of  a  clerk,  at  the  yearly  meeting  of  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  twenty-seven.  Their  candidate  for  the  clerkship 
on  that  occasion  was  John  Comly,  a  man  who  had  been 
busy  for  months  before,  holding  private  meetings,  with  the 
express  view  of  preparing  the  minds  of  all  who  were  on 
their  side  for  a  dissolution  of  the  society.  Among  others, 
Halliday  Jackson  is  compelled  to  admit  this,  and  his  ex- 
cuse for  this  conduct  on  the  part  of  his  friend,  is  founded 
upon  this  right  of  revolution.  With  a  candidate  of  such 
pretensions  and  with  such  views  they  came  forward,  and 
they  certainly  could  not  be  surprized  that  the  friends  of 
this  religious  institution,  the  adherents  to  the  faith  of  their 
fathers,  who  had  been  stemming  the  torrent  of  innovation, 
should  endeavour  still  to  resist  its  progress  and  prevent  it 
from  overwhelming  them. 

It  is  proved  by  Samuel  Bettle  that  the  old  clerk  acts, 
according  to  their  established  usage,  until  a  new  one  is 
appointed.  No  election  in  this  case  was  made;  the  meet- 
ing could  not  agree  in  the  choice  of  a  clerk.  The  repre- 
sentatives had  deliberated  upon  the  subject,  and  no  agree- 
ment could  be  made.  What  then  was  to  be  done?  If  they 
could  not  agree  in  the  choice  of  a  new  clerk,  all  that 
remained  was  to  acquiesce  and  submit  to  the  continuance 
of  the  old  one  until  a  new  clerk  should  be  appointed. 

But  a  serious  objection  is  here  interposed  on  the  part  of 
the  "  Hicksites."  They  say  they  had  a  jnajority  in  their 
favour.  This,  however,  does  not  appear.  The  votes  were 
not  counted,  and  it  is  all  mere  conjecture. 

But  however  that  may  be,  it  is,  t  think,  well  settled,  that 
this  society  in  its  proceedings,  does  not  vote  or  decide  bv 
majorities.  It  is  so  alleged  by  Hendrickson  in  his  answer, 
and  his  witnesses  prove  it.  Charles  Stokes,  their  own 
witness,  in  his  deposition  gives  a  very  clear  and  full  view 
of  this  subject,  and  refers  you  to  Barclay,  who  states  the 
practice  of  the  society.  The  sense  of  the  meeting  is  gath- 
ered by  the  clerk,  of  course  a  weighty  and  responsible  of- 
ficer; and  in  doing  so,  no  doubt,  he  attaches  importance 
to  numerical  strength,  but  it  is  not  the  only,  nor  the  prin- 
cipal criterion.  The  history  of  Quakerism'may  be  studied 
in  its  details  with  advantage.     This  society  has  existed  for 


45 

ages,  has  transacted  business  of  every  kind,  settled  the 
disputes  and  controversies  of  its  ov^^n  members,  without 
suffering  them  to  resort  to  courts  of  justice,  yet  in  all  its 
deliberations,  religious  and  secular,  no  decision  has  ever 
been  made  by  taking  a  vote  or  by  counting  the  members. 
Their  decisions  are  made  in  unity ;  but  by  this  they  do  not 
understand  unanimity  or  majority.  They  designate  their 
decision  generally  by  calling  it  the  prevailing  sense  of  the 
meeting.  The  officer  to  collect  this  prevailing  sense,  is 
the  clerk,  who  is  clothed  with  great  responsibility.  The 
decision  does  not,  says  Barclay,  rest  with  the  few  or  the 
many.  Age,  experience,  intelligence,  weight  of  religious 
character,  furnish  considerations  of  importance  in  deter- 
mining the  sense  of  the  community.  If  too  much  heat 
should  be  found  entering  into  their  deliberations,  they  wait 
until  the  tumult  and  agitation  of  the  mind  shall  subside — 
until  the  passions  shall  be  hushed  under  the  influence  of 
religious  impression.  In  such  a  frame  of  mind,  the  pride 
of  opinion  is  subdued,  a  proper  regard  is  paid  to  religious 
intelligence  and  experience,  and  a  silent  and  harmonious 
acquiescence  is  the  result.  What  self-command,  what  dis- 
cipline of  the  mind  and  heart,  are  required  for  the  intro- 
duction of  such  a  principle  of  action,  and  how  far  superior 
is  it  to  decision  by  majorities,  where  the  state  of  society  is 
so  far  improved,  and  the  passions  are  so  far  controlled  as 
to  warrant  its  introduction.  It  is  said  in  the  answer  of 
Hendrickson,  and  is  said  truly,  that  one  of  the  most  pro- 
minent features  in  the  "  Hicksite"  innovation,  is  the  at- 
tempt to  break  down  this  distinguishing  principle  of  deci- 
sion which  has  so  long  prevailed  in  their  society,  with  so 
much  usefulness,  and  in  its  tendency  to  disqualify  them  for 
its  use. 

We  become  so  familiarized  with  the  artificial  regula- 
tions of  society,  as  to  mistake  them  for  the  paramount  rules 
of  action  prescribed  by  nature.  Those  who  look  only  at 
the  surface  of  society,  are  apt  to  imagine  that  all  proceed- 
ings that  are  counter  to  the  movements  they  have  been 
accustomed  to  witness,  must  be  absolutely  unjust.  The 
superior  influence  which  would  direct  the  actions  of  men 
associated  together,  in  the  absence  of  positive  rule,  would 
be  the  combined  result  of  superior  moral  and  physical 
power.  In  most  of  the  institutions  of  society,'  majorities 
regulate  their  decision,  because  it  furnishes  a  convenient 
rule ;  but  this  rule  is  often  departed  from,  and  would  oftea 


46         - 

be  unjust.  In  banks  and  other  institutions  where  property 
is  the  main  concern,  it  gives  way  to  property;  sometimes 
a  concurrence  of  two-thirds  or  of  three-fourths  is  required, 
j  In  religious  societies  the  promotion  of  religion  is  of 
course  the  grand  object  in  view.  Their  rules  of  proceed- 
ing should  be  adapted  to  that  object.  Surely  there  is  noth- 
ing unjust  in  requiring  that  mere  numerical  strength  should 
give  way  to  religious  weight  and  experience,  in  a  religious 
society  where  birth-right  prevails,  and  more  especially 
when  the  beneficial  effects  of  this  course  of  proceeding 
have  been  experienced  through  a  series  of  ages. 

But  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  true  to  their  purpose  of  intro- 
ducing novelties,  resolved  to  carry  their  ends  by  introduc- 
ing among  them  the  new  and  extraordinary  principle  of 
deciding  by  majorities.  As  preparatory  to  its  introduction 
into  this  yearly  meeting,  they  doubled  their  number  of 
representatives  in  those  quarters  in  which  they  had  the 
predominancy,  and  for  the  great  work  of  introducing  a 
notorious  disorganizer  into  the  most  responsible  office 
among  them.  Their  courage  however  failed  them  ;  they 
could  not  act  up  to  their  new  purpose.  The  innovation 
would  have  been  too  glaring.  Not  an  attempt  was  made 
in  that  meeting  to  count  the  votes.  Amidst  the  agitation 
and  bustle  of  the  scene,  John  Cox,  the  respectable  old  man 
"who  is  spoken  of  with  so  much  approbation  by  the  wit- 
nesses on  both  sides,  reported, — ^what  ?  That  he  could  not 
count  the  majority  ?  Nothing  like  it — he  did  not  dream  of 
ascertaining  majority  or  minority.  But  he  could  not  gather 
the  sense  of  the  meeting.  The  spirit  of  innovation  and 
discord  threw  all  into  confusion.  The  "  Hicksites"  even- 
tually abandoned  this  effort.  They  acted  wisely  in  not 
persisting  in  their  endeavour  to  palm  a  disorganizer  upon 
the  yearly  meeting  as  their  clerk.  The  old  clerk  took  his 
seat  Comly  took  his  seat  as  assistant  cleri,  and  they 
proceeded  to  business.  The  yearly  njeeting  became  fully 
organized.  Among  other  things  they  passed  a  resolution 
for  raising  money  for  the  liberation  of  some  slaves.  This 
acquiescence  however  secured  tranquillity  but  for  a  short 
time.  It  was  like  the  calm  which  precedes  the  storm. 
The  fires  of  discord  were  allayed,  but  they  were  not 
quenched.  They  were  smouldering  under  ground.  While 
this  yearly  meeting  was  engaged  in  the  business  of  the 
society,  the  "  Hicksite"  party  held  secret  meetings  of  their 
own  apart,  in  which  they  were  preparing  the  work  of  dig* 


organization,  and  at  which  Comly  the  assistant  clerk  at- 
tended. Dr.  Gibbons,  the  editor  of  the  Berean,  was  there. 
They  resulted  in  the  issuing  of  a  publication  addressed  to 
the  members  of  their  party,  in  which  they  state,  "  We  feel 
bound  to  express  to  you  under  a  settled  conviction  of  mind, 
that  the  period  has  fully  come  in  which  we  ought  to  look 
towards  making  a  quiet  retreat  from  this  scene  of  confu-  ' 
sion,  and  we  therefore  recommend  to  you  deeply  to  weigh 
the  momentous  subject,  and  to  adopt  such  a  course  as 
truth,  under  solid  and  solemn  deliberation,  may  point  to,  in 
furtherance  of  this  object,"  «&c.  They  invite  a  conven- 
tion to  be  composed  of  "  their  memhers,^^  with  a  view  to 
organize  themselves  anew,  and  by  means  of  this  new 
organization,  to  consummate  their  purpose  of  making  a 
quiet  retreat. 

That  purpose  was  consummated.  That  quiet  retreat, 
or  at  least  that  retreat,  was  fully  effected.  In  June,  eigh- 
teen hundred  and  twenty-seven,  that  party  held  a  conven- 
tion which  brought  forth  another  address,  but  directed 
specially  to  their  own  members.  In  this  address  they 
speak  of  the  blessed  influence  of  gospel  love  and  insinuate 
an  abandonment  by  the  opposite  party  of  this  fundamental 
principle  of  their  union,  as  they  term  it.  So  it  seems,  they 
have  fundamental  principles,  or  in  other  words,  according 
to  their  notions  of  fundamental  principles,  a  creed.  And 
they  conclude  this  address  with  saying,  "  We  therefore 
under  a  solemn  and  weighty  sense  of  the  importance  of  this 
concern,  and  with  ardent  desires,  that  all  our  movements 
may  be  under  the  guidance  of  him  who  only  can  lead  us 
in  safety,  have  agreed  to  propose  for  your  consideration 
the  propriety  and  expediency  of  holding  a  yearly  meeting 
for  frie?ids  in  u?iity  with  us,  residing  within  the  limits  of 
those  quarterly  meetings  heretofore  presented  in  the  yearly 
meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  for  which  purpose  it  is  re- 
commended that  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  ichich 
may  he  prepared  for  such  a  measure,  should  appoint  repre- 
sentatives to  meet  in  Philadelphia  on  the  third  second  day 
in  tenth  month  next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  com- 
pany with  other  mevahevs  favourable  to  our  views,  there  to 
hold  a  yearly  meeting  of  men  and  women  friends,"  &c. 

This  passage  in  their  address  suggests  several  remarks 
for  your  consideration.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  that  this 
"  Hicksite"  party  did  not  pretend  to  disown  or  exclude  the 
"  Orthodox"  from  membership.    They  complain  that  the 


48 

"  Orthodox"  were  too  restricted  in  their  views  of  doctrine. 
They  do  not  pretend  to  assert  that  persons  entertaining 
their  views  of  rehgion  are  not  Quakers,  but  they  contend 
for  a  broader  latitude.  They  are  for  adopting  a  principle 
to  regulate  membership  which  will  embrace  trinitarians, 
unitarians,  or  even  pagan  philosophers.  For  it  is  well 
known  that  the  platonic  sect  of  pagan  philosophers,  did 
believe  in  divine  illumination.  In  short,  Quakerism,  accord- 
ing to  their  views,  would  resemble  the  tesselated  pavement 
to  which  the  earl  of  Chatham's  celebrated  cabinet  has 
been  compared.  Abraham  Lower  admits  that  they  did 
not  pretend  to  disown  the  orthodox.  The  yearly  meeting 
of  Philadelphia  in  1827,  continued  its  sittings,  and  was  re- 
gularly adjourned  to  meet  the  ensuing  year  as  the  disci- 
pline prescribes,  and  they  did  accordingly  meet  the  ensu- 
ing year,  and  have  continued  to  meet  regularly  ever  since. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  "  Hicksite"  address,  which  I 
last  referred  to,  is  directed  specially  to  Friends  in  unity 
with  themselves,  who  are  prepared  for  their  measures, 
and  favourable  to  their  views.  Its  object  was  not  to  call 
a  convention  composed  of  a  delegation  from  the  whole 
body  of  the  members  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  yearly 
meeting,  but  only  a  part  of  that  body.  A  convention  then 
composed  of  a  party,  met  together  in  October  1827,  and 
formed  a  new  yearly  meeting,  which  according  to  their 
adoption,  has  met  subsequently  at  Philadelphia,  yearly,  a 
week  sooner  than  the  old  yearly  meeting,  which  continues 
to  assemble  at  the  usual  time  and  place.  They  call  this 
new  yearly  meeting  a  reorganization  of  the  old  one ;  a 
revival  upon  its  pristine  principles;  a  sort  of  phoenix  rising 
from  the  ashes.  But  the  old  phoenix  remains  alive.  The 
old  yearly  meeting  continues  in  full  operation.  There  are 
two  radical  objections  to  their  effort  to  identify  their  new 
yearly  meeting  with  the  old  yearly  meeting.  In  the  first 
place  their  new  yearly  meeting  is  the  offspring  of  a  party, 
and  not  of  the  whole  body.  There  was  no  notification  to 
the  whole  body  to  attend  the  conventions  which  formed  it. 
The  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  a  corporation  are  not 
valid,  unless  there  was  a  general  notice  to  the  whole  body 
composing  that  meeting  to  attend.  In  the  next  place,  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  government  of  this  church,  no 
new  yearly  meeting  could  be  formed  within  the  precincts 
of  the  old  one  without  their  concurrence,  and  of  course 
no  new  yearly  meeting  without  such  concurrence  could 


49, 

be  formed  to  supersede  the  old  one.  If  we  can  place  any 
confidence  in  the  evidence,  no  yearly  meeting  ever  has 
been  formed  within  the  bounds  of  an  old  yearly  meeting 
without  their  concurrence. 

The  opposite  party  will  derive  no  aid  from  adverting  to 
the  circumstances  under  which  this  old  yearly  meeting 
was  originally  formed  in  this  country.  The  members  of 
the  society  who  originally  organized  this  yearly  meeting 
at  Burlington,  found  themselves  in  a  new  position.  They 
were  not  within  the  bounds  of  any  yearly  meeting :  they 
therefore  acted  for  themselves,  in  the  same  way  as  the 
early  Friends  proceeded  in  forming  the  first  yearly  meet- 
ing in  London.  But  they  bore  in  mind,  notwithstanding, 
the  general  connection  of  all  the  parts  of  this  religious 
society,  by  which  they  are  identified  in  some  measure  as 
a  whole.  They  advised  the  yearly  meeting  of  London  of 
their  proceedings,  and  obtained  their  approbation;  and 
considering  the  colonial  condition  of  their  new  country,  they 
became  in  some  degree  subordinate  to  that  ancient  yearly 
meeting,  and  appeals  to  it  were  allowed,  and  an  appellate 
jurisdiction  was  actually  exercised.  Ever  since  this  coun- 
try has  been  freed  from  its  dependence  upon  the  British 
crown,  an  advisory  correspondence  has  been  kept  up 
with  them  by  the  yearly  meetings  of  this  country.  What 
analogy  can  a  friend  to  order  see  between  the  proceed- 
ings by  which  this  yearly  meeting  was  originally  formed 
at  Burlington,  and  the  proceedings  which  eventuated  in  the 
creation  of  this  "  Hicksite"  yearly  meeting?  If  a  party 
may  rise  up  in  a  church,  hold  private  meetings,  issue  ad» 
dresses  to  their  own  party,  and  thus  form  a  party-conven- 
tion with  full  power  legitimately  to  create  a  new  yearly 
meeting,  there  is  an  end  to  all  order,  to  all  rule,  and  to  all 
regular  organization  of  society.  But  they  go  still  farther 
than  this,  and  pretend  that  this  new  yearly  meeting  of 
their  own,  fostered  and  matured  in  the  hot-bed  of  party- 
spirit,  has  completely  superseded  the  old  yearly  meeting 
which  still  continues  in  operation,  and  has  legitimately 
usurped  and  succeeded  to  all  its  rights. 

I  will  not  trouble  the  court  with  going  into  the  details  of 
the  circumstances  attending  the  separation  in  the  Burhng- 
ton  quarter  and  the  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks, 
The  proceedings  in  the  Burlington  quarter  are  detailed  by 
Gummere,  and  in  the  meeting  at  Crosswicks  by  Craft  and 
Emlen.  In  both  cases,  individuals  intruded  themselves 
6 


60 

into  the  meetings,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  society  of 
Friends.  By  the  principles  of  their  society,  no  person  can 
be  present  at  their  meetings  of  business,  who  is  not  a  mem- 
ber; whether  he  has  never  belonged,  or  whether  he  has 
formerly  belonged  to  their  society,  and  been  disowned. 
Unwilling  to  use  force,  but  disposed  to  act  in  the  spirit  of 
peace,  if  any  persons  thus  present  should  refuse  to  with- 
draw, the  meeting  must  either  cease  to  transact  their  busi- 
ness, or  adjourn  to  some  other  place.  The  monthly  meet- 
ing at  Crosswicks  and  the  Burlington  quarter  took  the  lat- 
ter alternative,  and  adjourned  to  a  neighbouring  house, 
and  took  their  minutes  and  papers,  and  their  clerks  with 
them.  They  did  not  privately  meet  in  convention  and 
form  new  meetings,  but  regularly  adjourned  their  meet- 
ings to  different  places.  In  the  mean  time,  the  "  Hicksite" 
parties  who  were  connected  with  the  persons  who  thus 
intruded,  took  possession  of  the  meeting  houses,  chose  new 
clerks  of  their  own,  organized  themselves  into  monthly  and 
quarterly  meetings,  and  have  placed  themselves  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  new  yearly  meeting,  formed  in  conven- 
tion by  the  "  Hicksites"  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  The 
"  Orthodox"  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  and  their  month- 
ly and  preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  still  continue 
under  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  the  old  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia.  Thus  David  Clark  was  long  before 
the  secession,  and  still  is,  the  clerk  of  the  "Orthodox" 
monthly  meeting  at  Crosswicks ;  and  Gummere,  the  clerk 
of  the  Burlington  quarter,  states  that  he  still  receives  his 
reports  from  him,  as  such  clerk. 

I  trust  I  have  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  this  court, 
that  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  having  previously  abandoned 
the  religious  faith  of  their  fathers,  have  seceded  from  the 
rule  and  government  of  the  church.  It  only  remains  to 
consider  the  effect  of  this  secession  and  abandonment, 
upon  the  property  in  question  in  this  cause. 

1  have  already  said  that  these  religious  societies  take 
the  equitable  beneficial  interest  in  property  held  by  trus- 
tees for  their  use  and  on  their  account,  in  their  social  ca- 
pacity; and  I  have  shown  that  in  all  cases  of  charity,  that 
■  cardinal  virtue  of  Christianity,  societies  thus  formed  may 
acquire  such  an  interest  in  property,  and  that  a  court  of 
equity  will  protect  it,  as  Chancellor  Kent  observes.  The 
court  would  otheru'ise  be  cut  off  from  a  large  field  of 
jurisdiction  over  some  of  the  most  interesting  and  momen- 


51 

tous  trusts  that  can  possibly  be  created  and  confided  to 
the  integrity  of  men.  A  body  of  men  to  hold  property  in 
a  court  of  law,  in  a  social  capacity,  must  be  generally  in- 
corporated. There  are  instances,  however,  in  which  they 
are  allowed  thus  to  hold  property  even  at  law,  without  an 
actual  incorporation,  and  in  such  cases  they  are  techni- 
cally termed  quasi  corporations.  An  individual  having  an 
interest  in  property  thus  held,  has  not  a  vested  interest. 
He  is  benefited  by  it  in  his  social  relation  as  a  member 
of  that  society,  and  when  he  of  himself  and  others  along 
with  him,  forming  a  party,  cease  to  be  members  from 
whatever  cause,  of  that  particular  society,  they  cease  to 
have  an  interest  in  the  property  of  that  society. 

When  two  parties  arise  in  a  religious  society,  holding 
property  thus  protected  in  a  court  of  equity,  as  a  charita- 
ble institution,  and  they  actually  divide  and  become  com- 
pletely separated,  holding  different  doctrines,  that  party 
must  be  considered  as  forming  the  true  society,  which  ad- 
heres to  the  original  established  doctrines  of  the  society 
The  object  of  a  religious  society  is  religious  worship.  But 
they  worship  their  creator  according  to  certain  forms  and 
doctrines  in  which  they  believe.  The  worship  of  their 
creator  in  this  way  is  the  special  purpose  for  which  the 
society  was  formed.  They  resemble  in  this  respect  a  cor- 
poration created  for  a  special  purpose.  In  such  a  case, 
all  its  faculties  and  powers  must  be  devoted  to  that  pur- 
pose. A  departure  in  essential  particulars,  persevered  in, 
will  be  a  cause  of  forfeiture  of  its  right  and  privileges. 
Thus  an  association  formed  for  banking  purposes,  could 
not  appropriate  their  funds,  to  purposes  essentially  dif- 
ferent. And  thus  in  the  case  of  a  religious  society 
formed  for  the  promotion  of  certain  religious  doctrines, 
and  for  worship  agreeably  to  those  doctrines,  the  funds 
cannot,  without  violating  the  plainest  dictates  of  justice  as 
■well  as  law,  be  perverted  to  the  support  of  different  doc- 
trines and  a  different  kind  of  worship.  And  when  an  un- 
fortunate division  arises,  that  party  which  clings  to  the 
original  faith  of  the  society,  or  in  other  words,  to  the  spe- 
cial purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  organized,  must, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  be  considered  the  true  society, 
whenever  the  separation  between  them  has  become  so 
marked  as  to  render  the  determination  upon  that  puini 
necessary. 

When  the  difference  arising  between  such  parties  ha^ 


52 

reference  to  the  church  government,  and  it  is  carried  so 
far,  that  one  party  leave  the  government  of  the  church, 
those  remaining  and  adhering  to  the  ancient  government, 
must  constitute  that  church.  Those  thus  departing,  may 
organize  and  form  a  new  society,  if  they  please,  with  a 
new  government,  but  they  must  acquire  property  anew,  if 
they  have  occasion  to  use  any  in  their  new  social  capacity. 
They  cannot  take  the  property  of  the  old  society  with  them. 

If  a  departure  either  in  faith  and  doctrine,  or  in  disci- 
pline and  church  government,  separately  produce  such 
effects,  the  combined  operation  of  the  two,  that  is  a  depar- 
ture both  in  faith  and  in  government,  must  unquestionably 
terminate  in  the  like  result. 

The  opinion  entertained  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  that 
a  radical  departure  by  a  portion  of  the  society  from  the 
established  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  church,  cannot  be  in- 
quired into  by  a  temporal  tribunal,  is  so  far  from  being 
true,  that  on  the  contrary,  such  a  departure  is  not  only  a 
ground  of  forfeiture  of  their  privileges  and  franchises  in 
the  church,  but  it  is  a  consideration  of  paramount  import- 
ance before  the  temporal  tribunal.  Thus  if  there  are  two 
parties,  one  of  which  has  departed  in  essential  doctrine, 
and  the  other  in  relation  to  church  government,  and  a 
marked  separation  has  taken  place  between  them,  that 
party  which  adheres  to  the  true  doctrines,  will  be  deemed 
the  true  church,  and  as  such  entitled  to  all  its  temporalities. 

The  opposite  party  pretend  that  they  have  the  majority. 
— This  is  denied,  and  they  certainly  have  failed  to  prove 
it.  Their  own  witnesses  in  the  cross-examination  show 
that  but  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  lists  they  have 
furnished,  for  they  are  grossly  inaccurate.  But  I  will  not 
go  into  details  upon  this  point,  because  if  my  view  of  the 
subject  be  correct,  it  is  altogether  unnecessary;  and  it 
would  be  altogether  unnecessary  in  the  case  of  a  society 
which  usually  votes  by  majorities.  In  such  a  case  the 
majority  will  regulate  and  decide  on  subjects  coming  with- 
in the  pale  of  their  authority,  and  which  are  not  in  viola- 
tion of  the  trust.  But  a  majority  have  no  power  to  break 
up  the  original  land-marks  of  the  institution.  They  have  no 
power  to  divert  the  property  held  by  them  in  their  social 
capacity  from  the  special  purpose  for  which  it  was  be- 
otowed.  They  could  not  turn  a  Baptist  society  into  a 
Presbyterian  society,  or  a  Quaker  into  an  Episcopalian 
society.     They  could  not  pervert  an  institution  and  its 


53 

funds  formed  for  trinitarian  purposes  to  anti-trinitariaa 
purposes.  It  might  as  well  be  pretended  that  they  could 
divert  the  funds  devoted  to  the  sustenance  of  aged  and  de- 
crepid  seamen  to  the  use  and  benefit  of  a  foundling  hos- 
pital. A  corporation  diverted  from  the  purposes  of  its 
institution  will  be  regulated  and  brought  back  to  its  origi- 
nal objects  by  a  court  of  law,  and  a  religious  society  pro- 
tected by  the  law  of  charities  will  be  kept  to  its  original 
destination  by  the  powerful  arm  of  this  high  court. 

The  principles  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  explain, 
appear  to  me  to  flow  so  naturally  from  the  doctrines  of 
trust,  familiar  to  every  equity  lawyer,  as  not  to  admit  of 
any  dispute,  nor  do  I  know  that  the  counsel  on  the  other 
side  will  attempt  to  dispute  them.  I  will  call  the  attention 
of  the  court,  however,  to  a  few  authorities  for  the  purpose 
of  illustration.  In  the  case  of  Baker  and  others  against 
Fales,  16  Mas.  R.  488,  it  was  decided,  that  when  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members  of  a  congregational  church  secede 
from  the  parish,  those  who  remain,  though  a  minority, 
constitute  the  church  in  such  parish,  and  retain  the  pro- 
perty belonging  thereto.  The  court  say  that  the  very  term, 
church,  imports  an  organization  for  religious  purposes,  and 
property  given  to  it  eo  nomine  in  the  absence  of  all  decla" 
ration  of  trust  or  use,  must  by  necessary  implication,  be 
intended  to  be  given  to  promote  the  purposes  for  which  a 
church  is  instituted,  the  most  prominent  of  which  is  the 
public  worship  of  God.  That  as  to  all  civil  purposes  the 
secession  of  a  whole  church  from  the  parish  would  be  an 
extinction  of  the  church,  and  it  is  competent  for  the  mem-  \ 
bers  of  the  parish  to  institute  a  new  church,  or  to  engraft 
one  upon  the  old  stock.  But  where  members  enough  are 
left  to  execute  the  objects  for  which  a  church  is  gathered, 
choose  deacons,  &c.,  no  legal  change  has  taken  place : 
the  body  remains,  and  the  secession  of  the  majority  of  the 
members  would  have  no  other  effect  than  a  temporary 
absence  would  have  upon  a  meeting  which  had  been  regu- 
larly summoned.  The  same  point  was  in  effect  determined 
in  8  Mas.  R.  96. 

In  the  case  of  Ryerson  against  Roome,  decided  in  this 
court,  a  part  of  the  members  of  a  church  left  it,  and  were 
incorporated  anew,  and  formed  a  distinct  church.  The 
late  chancellor  of  New  Jersey  decided  that  they  were  not 
entitled  to  any  of  the  property ;  that  the  whole  continued 
to  belong  to  the  old  church. 
6* 


54 

The  case  of  the  Attorney  General  against  Pearson,  re- 
ported in  3  Merivale,  was  very  fully  discussed  at  the  bar, 
and  maturely  considered  by  Lord  Eldon,  A  bill  and  infor- 
mation was  exhibited  by  the  Attorney  General,  by  Stuart 
claiming  to  be  the  minister,  and  by  Mandon,  a  trustee; 
the  defendants  alleged  that  a  majority  of  the  congregation 
united  in  choosing  another  parson,  who  was  a  unitarian. 
The  property  was  given  upwards  of  a  century  preceding 
in  trust  for  preaching  the  gospel,  but  without  designating  in 
the  trust  the  kind  of  religious  doctrines  to  be  taught.  They 
said  that  in  1780  some  of  the  members  were  trinitarian, 
and  some  unitarian ;  that  in  1813  they  appointed  Stuart 
the  complainant  their  minister,  then  being  a  unitarian,  but 
that  in  1816,  having  turned  trinitarian,  they  dismissed  him, 
and  that  Joseph  Grey,  a  unitarian  preacher,  with  the  tinani- 
mous  consent  of  the  congregation,  was  appointed  in  his 
place.  The  Lord  Chancellor  decided  that  this  being  a 
trust  for  religious  purposes  a  court  of  equity  would  exer- 
cise complete  jurisdiction.  That  the  deed  being  in  trust 
for  religious  worship  without  mentioning  the  kind,  the 
court  would  resort  to  usage  to  explain  it,  and  to  ascertain 
the  kind  of  worship  originally  intended.  That  it  was  not 
in  the  power  of  the  members  to  change  the  original  pur- 
pose of  the  trust,  and  if  established  for  trinitarian  purposes, 
to  convert  it  to  purposes  anti-trinitarian.  That  the  trus- 
tees, though  vested  with  the  power  of  making  orders  from 
time  to  time,  cannot  turn  it  into  a  meeting  house  of  a  dif- 
ferent description,  and  for  teaching  different  doctrines 
from  those  established  by  the  founder ;  that  he,  as  chan- 
cellor, had  nothing  to  do  with  religious  doctrines  except 
to  ascertain  the  purpose  of  the  trust,  that  he  was  bound  to 
determine  that  question  and  not  to  permit  that  purpose  to 
be  altered. 

This  case  is  too  plain  to  require  comment.  That  great 
Chancellor  on  a  question  of  property  did  not  shrink  from 
inquiring  into  religious  doctrines  to  ascertain  a  trust,  and 
to  make  the  property  conform  to  the  trust,  under  the  fan- 
tastic idea  that  such  matters  were  too  sacred  or  sublima- 
ted for  an  English  court  of  justice.  Though  it  had  been 
used  for  years  for  unitarian  purposes,  and  the  present  in- 
cumbent, an  unitarian  preacher,  was  appointed  unani- 
mously, he  directs  an  inquiry  before  the  master  as  to  what 
■was  the  original  purpose  of  the  trust,  that  he  might  settle 
the  property  and  have  it  appropriated  to  the  maintenance 


55 

of  those  doctrines  which  were  originally  intended,  and 
that  too  without  inquiring  whether  there  was  any  formal 
creed  or  confession  of  faith  drawn  up  and  sisrned. 

In  the  second  volume  of  BHgh's  Reports,  page  539,  you 
will  find  the  case  of  Craigdallie  against  Aikman  and  others. 
This  was  a  Scotch  case  and  came  up  before  the  House  of 
Lords.  A  large  part  of  the  members  of  a  congregation 
left  the  jurisdiction  of  the  synod.  But  they  claimed  to 
hold  the  property  on  the  ground  that  they  were  the  true 
church,  in  as  much  as  they  adhered  to  the  original  doc- 
trines of  the  church,  and  they  alleged  that  the  synod  had 
departed  from  those  doctrines.  -The  court  below  decided 
in  favour  of  the  party  who  still  adhered  to  the  synod.  In 
the  House  of  Lords,  where  Lord  Eldon  presided,  the  court 
under  his  advice  decided,  that  if  it  were  true,  that  the 
members  of  the  congregation  thus  seceding,  adhered  to 
the  original  doctrines  of  the  church,  for  the  support  of 
which,  the  trust  was  originally  created,  they  were  entitled 
to  the  property,  notwithstanding  their  secession,  and  that, 
in  such  case,  the  decision  below,  should  be  reversed.  They 
therefore  referred  the  case  back,  with  directions  that  an 
inquiry  should  be  made  into  the  subject  of  doctrines.  The 
case  came  again  before  the  House  of  Lords  with  a  report 
from  the  court  below,  that  on  inquiry  they  could  not  find 
that  there  was  any  material  and  intelligible  distinction  be- 
tvt'een  them  on  the  subject  of  doctrine,  and  that  they  diflfer- 
ed,  only,  on  some  immaterial  point  in  regard  to  the  form 
of  an  oath.  The  court  then  affirmed  the  decision  below. 
This  case  shows  that  either  a  secession  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  or  a  departure  in  doctrine,  will  amount 
to  an  abandonment  of  right,  but  that  the  departure  from 
the  religious  doctrines  of  the  church  is  of  primary  and 
paramount  importance.  The  case  also  shows,  that  in  de- 
termining the  mere  question  of  secession,  the  court  looks 
to  the  highest  Ecclesiastical  tribunal  which  exercises  a 
superintending  control  over  the  inferior  judicatories,  and 
that  their  position  must  be  regulated  by  the  relationship  in 
which  they  stand  to  the  highest  controling  tribunal  in  the 
Church.  The  same  point  has  been  decided  in  the  state  of 
New  York.  The  trustees  of  the  Reformed  Calvinist  Church 
of  Canajoharie  sued  DifFendorf*  for  his  subscription  money 
which  he  had  promised  to  pay  annually  as  long  as  the  Rev. 

*  20  Johnp.  R.  12. 


56 

J.  J.  Warck  remained  their  regular  preacher.  This  cler- 
gyman had  been  deposed  by  the  Classis  having  the  imme- 
diate superintendence  of  that  church,  but  on  appeal  to  the 
synod,  the  highest  church  judicatory,  he  was  restored. 
The  court  decided  that  the  adjudication  of  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  tribunal  upon  this  matter,  was  conclusive  upon 
the  subject,  and  that  they  must  consider  him  the  regular 
preacher.  In  the  case  of  Den  against  Bolton  and  others, 
7  Halstead's  Reports,  you  had  the  rules  and  government 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  before  you  as  Justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  it  must  be  within  your  recollec- 
tion that  the  synod  of  that  church,  has  about  the  same  gen- 
eral control  over  the  inferior  tribunals  of  that  church,  as 
is  held  by  the  yearly  meetings  of  the  society  of  Friends. 
In  that  case  the  Supreme  Court  decided  that  all  disputes 
arising  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  respecting  the 
validity  of  an  election  appointment  or  call  of  elders  and 
deacons  must  be  referred  to  the  Church  Judicatory  to 
which  the  congregation  is  subordinate;  that  is,  first  to  the 
classis,  next  to  the  particular  synod,  and  lastly  to  the  gen- 
eral synod.  That  the  decision  of  the  classis  upon  any 
such  election,  appointment,  or  call  is  final,  unless  appealed 
from,  and  its  decision  will  be  respected  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  full  eflbct  given  to  it.  That  though  the  consis- 
tory may  be  dissatisfied  with  the  decision  of  the  classis, 
they  cannot  get  clear  of  their  decision  by  changing  their 
allegiance.  And  the  Chief  Justice,  in  delivering  his  opin- 
ion, distinctly  stated  that  to  constitute  a  member  of  any 
church,  two  points  at  the  least  are  essential,  a  profession  of 
its  faith  and  a  submission  to  its  government. 

These  authorities  will  be  found  fully  to  support  the  legal 
positions  I  have  advanced.  The  application  of  them  to 
the  case  is  too  plain  to  require  much  comment.  If  the 
"Hicksite"  party  have  abandoned  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  we  have  shown  that 
they  have ;  or  if  they  have  withdrawn  from  the  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia,  the-  highest  church  judicatory, 
having  a  general  superintending  control,  and  if  their  pre- 
parative meeting  at  Crossvvicks  is  attached  to  their  new 
yearly  meeting,  and  denies  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ancient 
yearly  meeting,  all  which  we  have  shown,  they  are  not  the 
true  society  of  Friends.  In  attempting  to  hold  this  proper- 
ty they  are  violating  the  trust.  It  is  the  especial  duty  of 
this  Court  to  preserve  the  trust  and  to  redress  the  injury. 


67 

I  must  be  allowed  again  to  remark  before  I  dismiss  thi^ 
subject,   that  the  question  before  you  regards   property. 
You  are  not  called  on  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  religious 
doctrine  or  church  government  in  the  abstract,  as  points 
of  theology.  You  are  only  to  ascertain  what  the  doctrines 
of  this  church   are,  what  was    its    government;  in    fact 
which  party  adheres  to  those  doctrines,  and  which  has 
abandoned  them.     Which  party  adheres  to  the  govern- 
ment which  existed  when  the  dissension  took  place,  and 
which  has  withdrawn  from  it,  as  subsidiary  to  the  main 
question  of  property,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  and  enforce 
the  trust.     The  questions  are  delicate,  and  they  also  are 
of  great  importance,  and  highly  interesting.     It  is  now  ta 
be  solemnly  determined  how  far  church  property  is  pro~ 
tected.     Whether  the  various  churches  spread  over  New 
Jersey,  adhering    to    settled    doctrines,  and     organized 
under  regular   forms    of  law  and  discipline,    are  to  be 
protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  property,  held  in  trust  for 
them  and  for  the  support  of  those  fixed  religious  opinions^ 
or  whether  on  the  other  hand,  innovators  introducing  new 
opinions  into  a  church,  and  carrying  parties  along   with 
them,  and  thus  getting  into  possession  of  the  property  of 
the  church,  may  apply  it  to  the  support  of  new  and  differ- 
ent doctrines,  put  the  church  government  at  defiance  by 
denying  its  authority,  and  by  forming  in  conventions  com- 
posed of  their  own  party  a  new  government,  put  the  gov- 
ernment and  law  of  the  land  at  defiance,  by  refusing  when 
called  on  in  courts  of  justice  to  disclose  or  testify  to  their 
doctrines,  under  the  cry  of  persecution,  and  under  the  pre- 
tence that  such  matters  are  too  delicate  and  sacred  for 
temporal  tribunals  to  discuss.  Men  have  a  right  to  change 
their  minds  in  religion  as  well  as  in  any  thing  else :  they 
have  a  right  to  form  new  churches  conformably  to  their 
new  opinions,  and  to  endow  them  when  thus  formed,  but 
they  must  do  it  fairly  and  openly,  not  under  false  guises 
and  mysterious  proceedings  kept  in  the  back-ground,  so 
that  they  may  draw  ofl^  the  funds  and  domains  of  the  an- 
cient and  established  churches  of  the  land,  and  apply  them 
to  their  new  purposes.     You  have  now  before  you  all  the 
evidence  that  can  be  desired,  taken  with  great  labour  and 
at  great  expense.     The  cause    is  ripe  for  decision,    and 
justice  calls  for  it.     Every  source  of  information  has  been 
traced  up  and  exhausted. 

From  the  investigation  which  I  have  been  called  upon 


58 

to  make  into  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  in  the  discharge 
of  my  professional  duty,  I  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
this  diflerence  of  opinion  never  would  have  taken  place  if 
the  members  of  this  society  had  been  adequately  instruct- 
ed in  their  standard  works.  They  have  a  catechism  pre- 
pared by  a  writer  of  great  learning  and  ability;  it  bears 
the  marks  of  great  care  and  pains  in  the  execution,  and  it 
may  fairly  challenge  competition  in  the  plan  and  design 
with  any  production  of  the  kind.  If  that  catechism  and 
the  other  works  of  that  author  were  well  studied  and  di- 
gested among  the  youth  of  this  society,  they  would  soon 
lose  their  relish  for  the  conceits  of  Elias  Hicks. 


Garret  Wall,  Esq.  counsel  of  Hendrickson  and  De- 
cow,  having  replied  to  Mr.  Wood,  the  argument  on  be- 
half of  the  plaintiff  was  continued  by  Isaac  H.  William- 
son, Esq.  on  the  10th  and  11th  of  January,  1832. 

Mr.  Williamson  commenced  : 

May  it  please  the  Court — The  unfortunate  circum- 
stances which  have  given  rise  to  this  cause,  are  deeply  to 
be  lamented  by  every  friend  of  religion,  and  to  the  pious 
members  of  the  society  of  Friends  they  must  be  truly  dis- 
tressing. That  ancient  and  highly  respectable  society, 
which  has  so  long  been  distinguished  for  love  of  peace 
and  order ;  for  its  meekness,  for  the  patience  with  which 
its  members  have  submitted  to  persecution,  and  above  all, 
for  the  union  and  harmony,  the  brotherly  love  and  christian 
charity,  by  which  they  have  proved  to  the  world  that  they 
richly  deserved  the  title  by  which  they  have  been  desig- 
nated, "  The  Society  of  Friends."  They  have  fallen  from 
the  high  elevation  on  which  they  stood ;  the  torch  of  dis- 
cord has  been  lighted  up  among  them;  the  union  whi^h 
existed  has  been  broken ;  instead  of  fellowship  and  har- 
mony, we  find  now  contention  and  strife.  This  is  the 
more  to  be  lamented,  as  it  has  happened  in  a  time  of  uni- 
versal religious  excitement,  and  of  unexampled  christian 
effort  to  spread  the  benign  principles  of  the  gospel.  Whilst 
every  means  is  using  to  promote  the  diffusion  of  light  and 
truth,  while  the  heralds  of  the  cros^  are  sent  to  foreign 


5d 

lands  to  proclaim  the  message  of  redeeming  love,  and  to 
hold  forth  the  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  disputes 
and  dissension  have  unhappily  arisen  at  home.  It  is  un- 
fortunate for  all ;  there  is  an  awful  responsibility  some- 
where. 

It  is  for  me  to  endeavour  to  trace  effects  to  their  true 
causes,  and  to  ascertain  what  has  produced  this  sad  state 
of  things.  I  shall  go  into  this  inquiry  with  extreme  reluc- 
tance. When  I  consider  the  task  I  have  undertaken,  the 
arduous  labour  I  am  to  perform,  I  almost  shrink  from  it. 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  answer  all  the  arguments  of  the  ad- 
verse counsel;  many  of  them  I  conceive  have  no  bearing 
on  the  case,  but  I  shall  endeavour  to  present  my  view  of 
the  subject  to  the  court  in  a  condensed  form,  and  in  such 
way  as  shall  abridge  their  labours  as  far  as  practicable.  I 
shall  endeavour  to  ascertain  what  is  the  true  question  be- 
fore the  court,  and  in  order  that  I  may  be  the  more  clearly 
understood,  permit  me  first  to  state  what  it  is  not.  It  is 
not  whether  a  number  of  individuals  belonging  to  a  reli- 
gious society  have  a  right  to  withdraw  and  form  a  new 
one,  this  right  is  unquestionable. 

Nor  is  it  whether  this  court  have  a  spiritual  jurisdiction  ; 
whether  they  have  a  right  to  inquire  into  men's  private 
opinions,  as  to  matters  of  faith  or  religious  belief,  and  to 
control  their  consciences.  We  claim  no  such  authority 
for  this  court,  nor  do  we  pretend  that  the  court  can  take 
notice  of  the  comparative  merit  of  religious  creeds,  nor 
decide  which  of  them  is  the  true  one,  for  this  would  be  to 
ask  them  to  point  out  the  true  way  to  the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem. Our  laws  leave  every  man  to  the  free  exercise  of 
his  own  opinions,  and  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  uncontrolled  by  any  inqui- 
sitorial power.  But  I  shall  contend  that  the  court  have  a 
right  to  inquire  into  the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  the  pro- 
fessors of  religion,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true 
ownership  of  property,  or  the  correct  disposition  of  it.  This 
is  not  to  interfere  with  men's  consciences,  nor  with  their 
religious  belief,  or  to  exercise  a  spiritual  jurisdiction.  The 
question  now  before  the  court  is  a  mere  question  of  pro- 
perty arising  out  of  a  trust,  and  this  court  has  not  only  a 
jurisdiction  over  property,  but  an  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  trusts.  The  property  in  dispute  is  a  charity,  a  fund 
raised  for  the  purpose  of  educating  poor  children  belong- 
ing to  the  society  of  Friends  in  Chesterfield,  in  this  state. 


60 

It  was  raised  by  subscription,  by  voluntary  contributiong 
and  donations  from  the  quarterly  and  annual  meetings- of 
which  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield  is  a  consti- 
tuent part,  and  the  object  of  the  charily  is  expressly  desig- 
nated. There  are  two  parties  claiming  the  control  of  this 
property.  The  parties  on  the  record  are  nominal  parties 
only,  Hendrickson  and  Decow  in  their  own  right  claim 
nothing,  they  claim  merely  for  the  benefit  of  the  societies 
to  which  they  respectively  belong.  I  shall  therefore  con- 
sider it  in  its  true  character,  as  a  question  between  these 
two  societies,  and  here  1  am  somewhat  at  a  loss  how  to 
distinguish  these  parties.  The  world,  that  part  of  it  I 
mean  which  has  heard  of  this  controversy,  has  given  them 
distinctive  appellations,  the  one  "  Orthodox,"  the  other 
"  Hicksite."  We  are  not  dissatisfied  with  the  name  given 
to  us.  Ever  since  the  fourth  century,  when  the  contro- 
versy arose  between  the  arians  and  the  trinitarians,  those 
who  adhered  to  what  are  termed  trinitarian  doctrines 
have  been  called  "  Orthodox."  They  are  now  styled 
"  Orthodox"  to  distinguish  them  from  arians  and  all  modern 
unitarians,  by  whatever  name  they  may  be  designated. 
The  term  "  Orthodox"  therefore  has  been  used  to  signify, 
'sound  in  faith,  correct  in  doctrine,'  and  in  this  sense  we 
are  satisfied  with  being  designated  as  the  "  Orthodox" 
party.  But  how  shall  1  distinguish  the  opposite  party,  for 
they  disown  the  name  of  "  Hicksites  ?"  Shall  I  call  them 
disorganizers?  They  deserve  the  name,  for  they  have  in- 
troduced into  a  peaceful  society,  all  this  discord.  Shall  I 
call  them  unitarians  1  They  will  neither  confess  nor  deny, 
they  refuse  to  inform  us  whether  they  believe  or  disbelieve 
the  doctrines  of  the  trinity.  Shall  I  call  them  jacobins 
and  sansculottes,  as  one  of  their  own  counsel  did,  (and  no 
doubt  he  thought  they  well  deserved  the  epithets,)  or  shall 
I  call  them  usurpers?  They  are  such,  for  they  have  usurp- 
ed our  rights  and  our  name.  I  cannot  call  them  by  the 
name  which  they  have  assumed.  I  shall  therefore  call 
them,  as  the  world  has  called  them,  "  The  Hicksite  party." 
We  claim  before  the  court,  that  this  party  have  sepa- 
rated from  the  society  to  which  they  originally  belonged. 
That  they  are  separatists;  and  being  such,  have  lost  all 
right  to,  and  control  over  this  fund.  I  will  not  say  they 
hdive  forfeited  their  right  to  it,  but  I  contend  they  have  lost 
all  right  to  interfere  with,  or  to  control  it.  They  have 
separated  from  the  society  and  meeting  to  which  they  be- 


61 

lono-ed,  and  for  whose  use  the  charity  was  originally  de- 
signed :  they  can  therefore  have  no  claim  to  it. 

I  shall  contend,  First,  that  they   are  separatists,  and 
being  such,  that  they  have  no  right  to  this  property. 

Second,  that  they  have  separated  on  the  ground  of  re- 
ligious doctrines,  that  they  have  changed  their  religious 
opinions,  and  do  not  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  society 
of  P'riends.  They  follow  a  new  leader  who  holds  out  new 
lights,  and  they  have  deserted  old  friends  for  new  ones.  If 
I  can  show  this  court  that  they  have  abandoned  the  ancient 
doctrines  of  Friends,  those  which  they  held  when  this  trust 
was  created,  I  shall  satisfy  the  court  that  they  can  have 
no  control  over  this  property.  But  we  are  met  with  the 
objection  that  we  have  no  right  to  go  into  this  inquiry — 
no  right  to  inquire  into  men's  religious  opinions  and  belief. 
I  have  already  admitted  that  you  have  no  right  to  do  so 
except  for  special  purposes.  But  if  this  court  once  obtain 
jurisdiction  of  a  cause  upon  grounds  of  equity,  they  will 
decide  that  cause,  although  they  are  compelled  to  go  into 
matters  over  which  they  have  no  original  jurisdiction. 
The  court  we  admit,  has  no  jurisdiction  over  men's  reli- 
gious opinions,  yet  if  an  inquiry  into  those  opinions  becomes 
necessary  in  the  investigation  of  a  question  before  the 
court  to  settle  a  claim  of  property,  it  will  go  into  that  in- 
quiry. 

It  has  no  criminal  jurisdiction,  it  cannot  inflict  punish- 
ment, but  if  in  the  progress  of  a  cause  respecting  property 
the  question  arises  whether  a  deed  has  been  forged,  the 
court  will  go  into  an  investigation  of  the  alleged  crime, 
not  for  the  purpose  of  inflicting  punishment,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  rights.  Again,  the  court  have  no  juris- 
diction over  corporations,  they  cannot  remove  an  officer 
who  has  been  elected,  nor  restore  him  if  he  has  been 
wrongfully  removed.  But  if  in  the  course  of  an  inquiry  a 
question  arises  whether  an  officer  has  been  duly  elected, 
the  court  must  go  into  it.  Or  if  the  question  arises  in  a 
cause  of  which  the  court  has  jurisdiction,  respecting  the 
election  of  directors  of  a  bank,  or  managers  of  a  turnpike 
road,  the  court  must  go  into  the  inquiry,  not  because  they 
have  original  jurisdiction  of  that  question,  but  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  right  of  property  to  which  the  re- 
spective parties  advance  their  claims.  So  in  the  present 
case,  if  the  right  of  property  depends  upon  religious  opi- 
nions,, the  court  must  go  into  the  inquiry  as  to  those 
7 


62 

opinions,  unless  religious  opinions  and  doctrines  fortn  an 
exception  to  all  other  description  of  cases.  This  is  not  a 
new  question,  but  one  which  is  well  settled,  and  concern- 
ing which  there  can  be  but  little  difficulty.  In  1  Dow,  16, 
Lord  Eldon  says,  "  the  court  may  take  notice  of  religious 
opinions,  as  facts  pointing  out  the  ownership  of  property." 

Here  the  true  distinction  is  taken,  the  court  go  into 
questions  of  religious  opinion  and  doctrine  as  matters  of 
fact,  to  ascertain  the  true  ownership  of  property.  In  3 
Merivale,  412,  in  a  case  very  analagous  to  the  present, 
the  Lord  Chancellor  says — "  1  must  observe,  if  the  ques- 
tion comes  before  the  court  in  the  execution  of  a  trust, 
whether  a  trustee  has  been  properly  removed,  and  that 
point  depends  upon  the  question,  whether  the  trustee  has 
changed  his  religion,  and  become  of  another  (as  in  this 
instance)  different  from  the  religion  of  the  rest  of  the  so- 
ciety, it  must  then  be,  ex  necesitate,  for  the  court  to  inquire, 
what  was  the  religion  and  worship  of  the  society  from 
"which  he  is  said  to  have  seceded,"  &c. 

In  that  case  it  seems  a  church  had  been  built  for  the 
worship  of  dissenters,  and  the  trust  declared  in  the  deed 
was  simply  "for  the  service  and  rvorship  of  God."  This 
church  had  gone  into  the  hands  of  a  part  of  the  congrega- 
tion who  were  unitarians.  Part  of  the  congregation  were 
trinitarians,  and  they  filed  their  bill,  alleging,  that  the  house 
was  built  to  promote  the  spread  of  trinitarian  doctrines,  in 
order  to  obtain  the  possession  of  the  property  from  those 
who  held  it  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  unitarian  doc- 
trines. The  court  went  into  the  inquiry  whether  the  con- 
gregation was  originally  trinitarian  or  unitarian.  This 
case  then  is  analogous  to  that  on  which  we  now  ask  the 
opinion  of  this  court.  The  doctrine  contended  for  by  the 
opposite  counsel  would  be  prejudicial  to  religion  and  inju- 
rious to  every  religious  congregation.  If  a  trust  be  created 
for  the  benefit  of  a  congregation  professing  one  kind  of 
religious  doctrines,  and  afterwards  claimed  by  a  part  of 
that  congregation,  but  professing  opinions  of  another  kind, 
can  it  be  maintained  that  the  court  will  not  or  cannot  in- 
quire into  the  doctrines  of  those  who  claim  the  control  of 
that  trust,  and  into  the  doctrines  of  the  church  at  the  time 
of  the  creation  of  the  trust,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
who  are  the  cestui  que  trusts  entitled  to  it  1  And  permit 
me  to  say,  that  if  any  trust  ought  to  be  protected,  it  is  a 
trust  for  charity,  and  especially  those  of  a  religious  nature. 


63 

I  entertain' there  fore,  no  doubt,  but  that  the  court  will  pro- 
tect this  trust  fund  to  the  extent  of  its  powers. 

But  it  has  been  contended,  that  if  this  can  be  done  in 
cases  of  schisms  in  other  religious  denominations,  yet  it 
cannot  be  done  in  the  case  now  in  question,  because,  as 
they  allege,  the  society  of  Friends  has  no  creed,  no  con- 
fession of  faith,  by  which  their  opinions  can  be  tested.  I 
shall  not  now  stop  to  inquire  what  their  doctrines  are,  or 
whether  they  have  such  a  creed.  My  present  purpose  is 
to  satisfy  the  court  that  they  can  go  into  the  inquiry  what 
the  doctrines  of  the  society  were  at  the  time  this  trust  was 
created,  and  what  the  doctrines  of  those  are  who  have 
since  separated  from  that  society.  But  I  shall  hereafter 
contend  that  the  society  of  Friends  have  a  creed — that 
they  have  repeatedly  published  it,  and  that  it  is  easier  to 
ascertain  the  opinions  of  Friends,  than  of  any  other  reli- 
gious society  in  the  country.  But  even  supposing  the  con- 
trary, will  the  court  refuse  to  go  into  this  inquiry  on 
account  of  its  difficulty? 

I  will  refer  the  court  to  a  case  of  much  greater  dif- 
ficulty ;  the  case  to  which  I  allude  is  in  3  Dessausure,  557, 
where  the  court  was  not  deterred  from  going  into  the  ne- 
cessary inquiry  by  the  difficulty  of  it.  That  was  a  con- 
troversy between  two  lodges  of  free  masons  ;  and  it  was 
decided  that  the  grand  lodge  could  not  make  regulations 
subversive  of  fundamental  principles  and  land-marks.  The 
question  was  whether  a  certain  test  oath  adopted  by  the 
grand  lodge,  was  of  that  character.  Nothing  could  be 
obtained  from  the  witnesses  but  matter  of  opinion,  as  they 
refused  to  testify  what  their  fundamental  principles  and 
land-marks  were  ;  great  contrariety  also  existed  in  the  tes- 
timony, the  witnesses  upon  one  side  swearing  that  in  their 
opinion  the  test  oath  was  a  departure  from  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  and  land-marks,  and  those  on  the  other  side 
swearing  that  it  was  not  so.  But  did  the  court  shrink 
from  the  investigation,  because  it  was  attended  with  dif- 
ficulty ?  No.  They  went  into  the  inquiry  and  decided 
the  question  upon  the  evidence  before  them.  We  have 
been  referred  to  an  opinion  of  Judge  Emmett,  in  the  state 
of  New  York,  and  the  character  of  the  judge  has  been 
highly  eulogized.  That  judge  certainly  stands  high,  and 
his  opinion  is  entitled  to  great  respect.  But  the  opinion 
produced  is  a  charge  to_^a  jury,  delivered  in  the  haste  of  a 
trial,  and  without  an  opportunity  for  full  and  calm  exami-. 


64 

nation,  and  therefore  not  entitled  to  the  weight  of  a  deli- 
berate opinion.  That,  moreover,  was  a  trial  at  law,  and 
the  court  over-ruled  evidence  of  religious  opinions,  upon 
what  ground  I  do  not  know,  except  that  the  inquiry  was 
a  proper  one  for  a  court  of  equity  and  not  for  a  court  of 
law.  This  evidence  being  laid  out  of  view,  the  judge 
undertook  to  charge  the  jury  that  in  the  absence  of  all 
other  considerations,  the  majority  must  govern.  This 
"^opinion  being  at  law,  cannot  be  held  to  govern  in  the  pre- 
sent case.  A  majorittf  can  have  no  more  right  to  divert  a 
trust  fund  from  the  object  for  which  it  was  originally  in- 
tended, than  a  minority. 

But  what  is  the  consequence  if  the  court  cannot  go  into 
this  inquiry  in  the  case  of  a  schism  in  a  society  of  Friends? 
Is  the  society  of  Friends  to  be  an  exception  to  all  other 
societies,  because  they  have  no  written  creed  or  articles 
of  faith,  and  the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  their  religious 
doctrines?  Can  the  presbyterian,  the  episcopalian,  the 
Roman  catholic  funds  be  protected,  and  yet  the  property 
given  in  trust  to  the  society  of  Friends  not  be  protected? 
Can  it  be  that  the  arm  of  the  law  is  not  long  enough,  or 
strong  enough,  to  reach  their  case,  and  that  they  are  to 
be  put  out  of  the  protection  and  pale  of  the  law?  The 
chents  of  those  learned  counsellors,  when  they  look  at  the 
consequences  of  this  doctrine,  will  not,  I  should  think, 
thank  them  for  its  avowal.  If  it  be  true,  it  leaves  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  a  peculiar  people,  to  settle  their  differ- 
ences in  their  own  way,  without  protection  and  without 
redress.  I  do  not  apprehend  that  breaches  of  the  peace 
would  be  the  consequence  of  such  a  doctrine ;  this  society 
would  not  in  "any  event  resort  to  physical  force,  but  the 
necessary  result  would  be,  that  if  a  part  of  a  religious 
meeting  attached  to  a  general  or  yearly  meeting,  saw  fit 
to  change  their  religious  principles,  no  matter  to  what,  or 
how  adverse  to  those  held  by  the  original  society,  they 
might  carry  with  them  the  whole  of  the  property,  if  they 
had  it  in  their  hands,  and  yet  the  law  could  not  reach 
them,  because  they  have  no  written  religious  creed.  Thus 
then,  a  trust  fund  created  for  the  express  use  of  the  soci- 
ety of  Friends,  might  be  converted  to  build  a  Roman 
catholic  chapel,  or  a  synagogue  for  Jews.  This  cannot 
be.  If  it  should  even  be  a  matter  of  more  than  ordinary 
difficulty  to  discover  the  creed  of  this  society,  that  will 
not  deter  the  court,  but  they  will  make  great  exertions  to 
arrive  at  the  truth. 


65 

And  here  I  think  the  opposite  counsel  who  first  address- 
ed the  court,  took  a  false  position.  He  contended,  that  it 
was  incumbent  on  us  to  prove  the  religious  opinions  of 
his  clients ;  that  the  burden  of  proof  was  upon  us,  not 
upon  them.  I  think  he  must  have  forgotten  the  position 
in  which  the  parties  stand  before  this  court.  They  do 
not  stand  here  in  the  character  of  plaintiff  and  defendant, 
but  in  the  character  of  claimants ;  both  parties  are  actors, 
and  each  one  is  bound  to  make  out  his  own  claim.  We 
make  out  ours ;  we  prove  all  that  the  trust  requires;  we 
answer  the  allegations  contained  in  the  bill  of  interplead- 
er, and  show  that  our  religious  opinions  are  those  of  the 
society  of  Friends.  When  they  come  to  answer,  they 
decline  showing  theirs.  It  is  true,  they  say  they  have  not 
changed  their  opinions,  that  they  hold  the  doctrines  of  the 
original  Friends,  as  they  understand  them ;  but  when  we 
ask.  Do  you  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  atonement,  and  that  the  scriptures 
were  written  by  divine  inspiration  and  are  of  divine  au- 
thority 1 — all  which  were  held  to  be  fundamental  doctrines 
by  the  early  Friends — they  refuse  to  answer.  But  still 
they  say,  We  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  original  Friends. 
This  answer  is  drawn  to  suit  any  state  of  things  that  may 
become  necessary.  Prove  the  doctrines  of  the  original 
Friends  to  be  what  you  please,  still  they  say.  We  hold 
the  same ;  prove  them  to  be  trinitarians,  We  are  trinita- 
rians ;  show  that  they  are  unitarians.  We  are  unitarians 
also ;  prove  them  to  be  Jews,  and,  We  will  be  Jews  too. 
This  is  a  very  convenient  way  of  answering,  but  it  will 
not  effect  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  adopted.  The  bill  of 
interpleader,  and  the  answers  of  Decow  and  Hendrickson, 
put  in  issue  the  original  doctrines  of  the  society,  and  per- 
mit both  parties  to  go  into  evidence  respecting  them.  We 
prove  what  these  original  doctrines  are,  and  that  we  hold 
them.  But  the  adverse  party  refuse  to  answer  as  to  the 
doctrines  which  they  hold,  or  to  grant  any  proof  respect- 
ing them,  alleging  merely-jhat  they  have  a  majority,  and 
therefore  are  the  society. 

The  burden  of  proof  as  to  their  religious  doctrines, 
was  upon  them  ;  they  have  put  them  in  issue  by  their  own 
pleadings,  and  it  was  incumbent  upon  them  to  show  their 
religious  principles,  in  order  to  sustain  their  claim.  We 
further  insist  that  their  refusal  to  answer  furnishes  a 
strong  presumption  against  them.     If  they  reallv  hold  the 

7* 


66 

doctrines  of  the  early  Friends,  as  they  allege,  why  should 
they  refuse  to  answer?  What  inducement  have  they  for 
"withholding,  or  refusing  to  avow  them  ?  Are  they  ashamed 
of  their  principles,  or  afraid  that  they  should  be  fully 
known,  on  account  of  the  legal  consequences  which  would 
attend  an  avowal  of  them  1  If  they  are  not,  why  decline 
to  state  candidly  what  principles  they  do  hold  1  But  it  is 
said,  that  we  ought  to  have  excepted  to  their  answer. 
Not  so — we  are  satisfied  with  the  answer,  if  they  are. 
We  do  not  wish  to  strip  off  the  mask,  if  they  choose  to 
wear  it.  We  will  make  out  our  case  in  the  clearest  man- 
ner possible,  and  rely  upon  the  presumption  of  law  against 
them,  if  they  refuse  to  disclose  in  their  answer  their  prin- 
ciples, or  to  prove  them. 

But  the  gentlemen  have  suggested  another  ground  of  ob- 
jection, with  the  hope,  as  1  apprehend,  of  escaping  out  of 
the  hands  of  this  honourable  court.  It  is  this,  that  inas- 
much as  they  have  refused  to  answer,  in  reference  to  their 
doctrines,  and  have  omitted  to  examine  witnesses  in  their 
behalf  on  that  subject,  the  court  ought  not  to  decide  the 
cause  now,  but  should  put  it  in  some  shape  in  which  the 
opinions  of  the  party  can  be  tested.  It  ought  to  be  refer- 
red, say  they,  to  a  master  to  ascertain,  or  to  a  jury  to  set- 
tle, what  the  doctrines  are.  But  can  the  gentlemen  show 
an  instance,  in  which  the  court  has  ever  ordered  a  refer- 
ence to  a  master,  or  directed  an  issue  to  be  formed  to  be 
tried  by  a  jury,  where  one  party  has  proved  his  case,  and 
the  other  party  has  voluntarily  refused  to  do  so.  No,  they 
cannot.  It  is  contrary,  I  aver,  to  all  the  principles  of  a 
court  of  equity.  The  court  will  not  indulge  one  party  to 
rie  by  until  he  has  heard  his  adversary's  evidence,  and  then 
grant  him  a  reference,  in  an  issue  in  order  to  go  into  his 
own  evidence;  it  will  not  give  a  party  such  an  opportunity 
to  tamper  with  witnesses. 

And  as  for  a  trial  by  jury,  your  honours  might  as  well 
order  a  jury  trial  in  an  account  cause.  This  would  be  a 
glorious  cause  for  a  trial  by  jury,  and  much  certainty,  to 
be  sure,  would  be  obtained  by  it.  The  case  now  before 
the  court  is  a  question  of  trust,  which  more  than  any  other, 
it  is  the  province  of  this  court  to  decide,  it  is  bound  to  de- 
cide it,  and  will  never  yield  that-  right  in  order  to  have  it 
tried  by  a  jury.  The  gentlemen  have  relied  on  the  case  in 
Dow,  but  that  does  not  sustain  them.  That  was  an  appeal 
from  a  court  in  Scotland,  and  from  the  record  and  plead- 


67 

ings  sent  up,  it  did  not  appear  upon  what  ground  the  deci- 
sion had  been  made.  When  the  case  came  before  the 
House  of  Lords,  they  ordered  the  cause  sent  back,  because 
it  did  not  appear  upon  what  ground  the  court  had  deliver- 
ed its  opinion.  There  was  no  reference  to  a  master,  no 
trial  by  jury  ordered,  but  the  cause  was  referred  back  to 
the  court,  to  state  the  ground  of  their  decision.  In  3  Me- 
rivale,  412,  which  the  gentleman  also  cited,  the  court  re- 
ferred it  to  a  master  to  ascertain  the  religious  opinions  of 
the  congregation;  but  it  was  done  by  consent  of  parties; 
the  question  then  came  before  the  Lord  Chancellor  upon 
bill  and  answer,  and  upon  a  motion  to  dissolve  the  injunc- 
tion which  had  been  granted;  the  court  there  had  granted 
the  injunction,  but  in  order  that  a  speedy  decision  might 
be  had,  and  to  avoid  the  delay  which  might  otherwise  oc- 
cur, referred  it  by  consent  of  parties  to  a  master,  to  as- 
certain what  were  the  religious  opinions  of  the  congrega- 
tion at  the  time  of  building  the  church.  There  could  have 
been,  in  the  then  stage  of  the  cause,  no  such  reference 
without  the  consent  of  parties.  I  trust  therefore  that  this 
court  will  themselves  decide  this  question,  which  will  be 
most  advantageous  to  the  parties,  to  the  public,  and  to  the 
cause  of  religion.  In  the  case  in  Dessausure,  to  which  I 
have  already  referred  your  honours,  although  there  was 
great  difficulty  in  deciding  what  the  facts  were,  yet  the 
court  ordered  no  reference,  but  decided  the  cause,  and  I 
trust  this  court  will  pursue  the  same  course. 

Before  I  come  to  consider  the  evidence,  I  will  take  no- 
tice of  another  subject  or  two,  which  have  been  presented 
here  by  the  adverse  counsel.  We  have  heard  much  from 
them  respecting  the  friendly  feelings,  and  generosity  of  the 
"  Hicksite"  party,  and  of  their  willingness  to  divide  the  pro- 
perty, according  to  the  numbers  of  the  respective  parties. 
It  is  certainly  very  kind  in  them,  to  want  to  divide  with  us, 
property  which  belongs  to  us,  and  to  which  they  have  no 
right.  But  would  the  court  divide  a  trust  fund,  which  had 
been  raised  for  a  specific  purpose,  even  if  both  parties 
were  agreed  to  the  division?  No;  this  could  not  be.  This 
court  would  never  suffer  it.  This  trust  was  created  for 
one  religious  meeting,  and  would  the  court  divert  it,  or  per- 
mit it  to  be  diverted  from  the  object  for  which  it  was  in- 
tended, and  give  it  to  two  religious  meetings?  The  court 
cannot  divert  the  trust  from  its  original  purpose;  it  would 
be  a  breach  of  faith,  and  of  every  principle  of  equity,  to 


68 

suffer  it  to  be  so  divided.  The  adverse  party  have  changed 
their  religious  opinions,  and  their  supreme  head ;  but  they 
are  welcome  to  return,  if  they  choose,  to  their  original 
principles,  and  to  participate  again  in  the  property.  They 
make  no  complaint  against  the  "Orthodox"  party,  in  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  they  do  not  allege  that 
they  have  changed  their  opinions.  Where  then,  I  would 
ask,  is  the  generosity  of  their  offer  to  divide,  when  the  pro- 
perty is  of  a  nature  not  to  be  divided,  and  to  which,  I  will 
not  say,  they  have  forfeited  all  right,  but  I  may  say,  over 
which  they  have  lost  all  control?  What  is  to  become  of 
the  meeting  houses  in  case  of  such  a  division?  Are  they  to 
be  cut  in  sunder,  and  a  portion  given  to  each  party?  Where 
will  this  doctrine  lead  to?  If  another  division  of  the  society 
takes  place,  there  must  be  another  division  of  the  property, 
and  another,  and  another.  Will  the  court  sanction  a  prin- 
ciple involving  such  consequences  as  these?  Never:  it  will 
look  to  the  object  of  the  trust,  and  see  that  it  is  strictly  ap- 
plied to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  originally  intended. 
It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  in  the  present  stage  of  this 
cause,  the  court  cannot  make  the  decision  which  they  ask, 
it  will  not  take  the  responsibility  of  dividing  this  property. 
Another  idea  was  thrown  out,  doubtless  for  the  audience, 
more  than  for  the  ear  of  the  court;  they  allege  that  we 
brought  them  into  court,  and  by  so  doing,  have  violated  the 
principle  of  Friends  against  going  to  law  with  each  other. 
We  deny  the  charge.  We  say  that  if  they  are  brought 
here  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  their  own  act,  and  it  is  the  con- 
sequence of  their  own  intermeddling,  in  that  in  which  they 
had  no  right  to  interfere.  The  original  bill  was  filed  by 
Hendrickson  against  Shotwell  to  compel  him  to  pay  the 
money  secured  by  the  mortgage;  Decow,  who  represents 
the  "Hicksite"  party  then  interferes,  and  tells  Shotwell  that 
Hendrickson  is  removed  from  his  office,  as  treasurer  to  the 
fund,  that  he  (Decow)  is  the  person  entitled  to  the  money, 
and  gives  him  formal  notice  that  it  must  be  paid  to  him, 
and  not  to  Hendrickson ;  Shotwell  is  then  compelled  for  his 
own  protection  to  file  his  bill  of  interpleader.  Have  they 
then  any  ground  for  charging  us  with  bringing  them  into 
court,  when  they  voluntarily  thrust  themselves  before  it  ? 
If  there  be  any  thing  in  the  charge  it  must  rest  upon  them. 
Have  we  committed  any  breach  of  our  principles?  No, 
we  have  not.  At  the  time  of  filing  Hendrickson's  bill,  Shot- 
well  was  not  a  member  of  either  meeting,  nor  had  he  been 


69 

for  a  long  time  previous.  There  was  then  nothing  impro- 
per in  the  commencement  of  this  suit  by  Hendrickson 
against  Shotwell,  and  if  there  has  been  any  thing  improper 
since,  it  is  owing  to  D^cow  himself,  and  the  party  for  whom 
he  acts.  Having  thus  endeavoured  to  remove  out  of  the 
way,  these  several  matters,  which,  I  conceive,  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  real  subject  of  this  controversy,  I  shall  now 
endeavour  to  maintain  two  general  propositions. 

First,  That  the  "  Hicksile"  party  have  separated  them- 
selves from  the  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  of  Chester- 
field, and  attached  themselves  to  a  new  yearly  meeting  as 
their  supreme  head,  and  thus  become  separatists,  and  as 
such,  have  ceased  to  have  any  right  to  the  fund  in  question. 
Second,  That  they  have  changed  their  religious  opinions, 
and  do  not  hold  to  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends, 
as  maintained  and  professed  by  them  from  the  beginning, 
and  at  the  time  this  fund  was  created;  that  they  have 
adopted  new  doctrines,  and  become  a  new  sect. 

If  I  can  sustain  either  of  these  propositions,  we  must 
succeed  in  this  cause,  and  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  if  I  do 
not  support  both.  In  maintaining  these  positions,  I  hope 
at  the  same  time,  to  prove  that  the  "Orthodox"  party  are 
the  true  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  and  adhere  to 
the  doctrines  of  primitive  Fri«nds.  And  I  shall  afterwards 
undertake  to  show  the  legal  consequences  arising  out  of  the 
separation  or  secession  of  the  "Hicksite"  party. 

First:  The  "Hicksite"  party  are  separatists  and  seced- 
ers:  they  have  separated  themselves  from  the  head  of  their 
church,  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  and 
from  the  society  to  which  they  originally  belonged.  The 
parties  before  the  court  claiming  the  control  of  this  fund, 
cannot  both  be  the  same  preparative  meeting,  they  have  no 
connection  with  each  other.  There  is  no  bond  of  union 
between  them.  One  must  be  the  true  preparative  meeting 
of  Chesterfield,  and  the  other  a  counterfeit,  a  spurious 
meeting.  Both  are  not  entitled  to  that  character;  which 
then  of  these  parties  is  the  real,  and  which  the  counterfeit 
meeting?  which  has  ceased  to  sustain  the  character  of  the 
original  meeting? 

Before  this  terrible  schism  took  place  in  the  society,  the 
Quakers  throughout  the  world,  considered  themselves  as 
one  religious  body,  as  a  united  whole.  To  use  the  lan- 
guage of  one  of  the  witnesses,  they  were  a  unit.  It  is  true 
they  were  divided  into  several  communities,  and  at  the  head 


70 

of  these  several  communities,  are  the  yearly  meetings. 
These  yearly  meetings  were  to  a  certain  extent,  indepen- 
dent of  each  other,  but  still  they  always  looked  upon  each 
other  as  brethren,  and  united  in  harmony.  A  correspon- 
dence was  constantly  maintained  between  them,  and  they 
were  ever  ready  to  assist  each  other  when  occasion  re- 
quired it.  The  yearly  meeting  at  Philadelphia  was  that  to 
which  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  was  attached. 
The  discipline  of  this  yearly  meeting  describes  the  connex- 
ion and  subordination  of  its  constituent  meetings  in  these 
words : 

"  The  connexion  and  subordination  of  our  meetings  for 
discipline  are  thus  :  preparative  meetings  are  accountable 
to  the  monthly,  monthly  to  the  quarterly,  and  the  quarterly 
to  the  yearly  meeting  :  So  that  if  the  yearly  meeting  be  at 
any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  any  inferior 
meeting;  or  a  quarterly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of 
either  of  its  monthly  meetings,  or  a  monthly  meeting  with 
the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  preparative  meetings ;  such 
meeting  or  meetings,  ought  with  readiness  and  meekness 
to  render  an  account  thereof  when  required." — Book  of 
Discipline,  p.  31.  Ed.  1806. 

In  conformity  with  this  organization,  the  preparative 
meeting  at  Chesterfield  was  a  constituent  branch  of,  and 
subordinate  to  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting:  that 
monthly  meeting,  of  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  and 
the  Burlington  quarter,  of  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meet- 
ing. It  appears  from  the  evidence,  that  the  separation 
which  first  occurred,  took  place  in  the  head  of  the  society, 
in  the  yearly  meeting.  We  must  therefore  look  there,  to 
see  what  was  done  to  produce  the  separation,  in  order 
that  we  may  form  a  correct  opinion  as  to  what  has  trans- 
pired since.  As  the  division  begun  in  the  head,  and  sub- 
sequently took  place  in  the  branches,  and  as  the  branches 
have  attached  themselves  to  different  heads,  they  must 
consequently  stand  or  fall  with  the  head  to  which  they 
have  attached  themselves.  If  those  who  separated  from 
the  original  head,  and  absolved  themselves  from  its  autho- 
rity, and  formed  a  new  supreme  head,  are  seceders,  are 
separatists,  then  all  those  in  the  subordinate  branches  who 
have  attached  themselves  to  those  seceders,  and  to  that 
new  head,  are  seceders  also ;  seceders  from  their  head, 
and  seceders  from  their  original  principles.  The  "  Hick-; 
^es"  say,  that  they  fire  the  original  yearly  meeting  r^c/T' 


71 

ganized  and  continued.  We  deny  it ;  we  say  that  they 
are  a  new  society,  a  new  meeting,  totally  distinct  from, 
and  unconnected  with  the  former  one,  with  the  one,  and 
the  only  one,  recognized  in  the  discipline.  If  they  can  show 
that  they  are  a  continuation  of  this  meeting,  and  that  they 
adhere  to  the  original  principles  of  Quakerism,  they  sustain 
their  case ;  but  if  we  prove  that  they  are  not  a  continu- 
ance of  it,  but  have  abjured  it,  and  absolved  themselves 
from  its  authority,  and  that  they  assume  to  be  what  they 
are  not,  they  must  then  fail.  Whether  they  are  a  new 
yearly  meeting  or  whether  they  are  separatists,  must  de- 
pend upon  another  question.  Was  the  original  meeting 
merged  or  destroyed,  when  the  new  meeting  was  formed  ? 
If  it  was  not,  then  the  latter  can  have  no  claim  or  pre- 
tence, to  being  a  reorganization  and  continuance  of  it. 
The  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side,  put  the  question  this 
morning  on  this  ground,  and  here  lam  ready  to  meet  him. 
He  contended  that  the  original  meeting  was  put  an  end  to, 
and  that  their  new  yearly  meeting  was  merely  a  reorgan- 
ization of  the  old  one.  This  is  an  important  point,  and 
perhaps  may  be  a  turning  one,  especially  if  there  should 
be  any  great  and  serious  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  doc- 
trines of  the  respective  parties.  I  shall  therefore  examine 
it  carefully. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  before  the  court,  that  the 
yearly  meeting  of  April  1827,  at  which  the  separation 
took  place,  met  regularly,  transacted  the  usual  business, 
and  after  they  had  got  through  that  business,  regularly 
adjourned  to  the  following  year;  and  that  they  have  re- 
gularly met  at  the  stated  period  and  at  the  same  place, 
and  as  the  same  yearly  meeting,  from  that  time  down  to 
the  present.  If  that  yearly  meeting  has  been  put  an  end 
to,  if  it  is  extinguished  or  destroyed,  it  must  be  by  some 
act  done  at  that  yearly  meeting,  or  by  some  act  previously 
performed.  Any  thing  subsequently  done  cannot  effect 
its  existence.  This  leads  me  to  inquire,  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  how  the  separation  took  place,  what  occurred 
at  that  meeting,  which  the  gentleman  can  rely  upon  as  a 
ground  for  destroying  the  original  yearly  meeting.  But 
before  I  examine  what  then  passed,  permit  me  to  advert 
to  the  course  previously  pursued  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party. 
Much,  it  is  alleged,  had  transpired  to  produce  dissatisfac- 
tion and  discord  among  the  members,  and  even  before 
that  yearly  meeting  of  1827  assembled,  a  separation  was 


72 

contemplated  by  the  party  who  afterwards  withdrew,  un- 
less they  could  obtain  the  ascendency.  They  meant  to 
obtain  that  ascendency  if  they  could,  but  if  they  failed  in 
effecting  that  purpose,  then  they  were  determined  to  sepa- 
rate. This  clearly  appears  from  the  evidence  of  Halliday 
Jackson,  one  of  their  own  witnesses.  Previous  to  the  ses- 
sion of  that  yearly  meeting,  John  Comly,  who  was  the 
arch  mover  of  all  this  business  of  separation,  under  pre- 
tence of  a  religious  visit,  had  gone  through  the  country, 
to  prepare  the  minds  of  their  party  to  come  forward  and 
make  a  struggle  in  the  yearly  meeting,  holding  out  the 
idea  of  the  separation,  if  that  struggle  should  prove  abor- 
tive. See  2nd  vol.  of  Depositions,  p.  58,  59,  and  108  to 
119.  The  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  these  disorgani- 
zers  appears  to  have  been,  the  meeting  for  sufferings,  and 
the  meetings  of  ministers  and  elders,  and  from  the  testi- 
mony of  this  witness,  it  seems,  that  the  party  wished  to 
procure  such  changes  in  the  discipline  of  the  society,  as 
should  place  those  meetings  under  their  own  control  and 
power.  I  shall  hereafter  notice  the  disputes,  which  had 
arisen  in  the  society,  respecting  those  meetings,  and  show 
that  they  all  arose  out  of  the  opposition  made  to  the  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks.  The  discontents  arising  from  this 
cause  had  determined  his  adherents  to  make  a  great  strug- 
gle in  1827,  and  one  part  of  their  plan,  it  seems,  was  to 
increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  the  yearly  meet- 
ing from  certain  quarters.  The  "Hicksite"  party  had  a 
decided  majority  in  Bucks,  Abington,  and  the  Southern 
quarters.  In  Bucks  and  Abington,  they  accordingly 
doubled  their  representation,  and  in  the  southern,  they 
increased  it  from  ten  to  fifteen.  The  other  party  made 
no  preparation  for  the  struggle.  In  this  state  of  things, 
the  yearly  meeting  took  place.  The  first  controversy 
arose  respecting  the  choice  of  clerk,  who  it  seems  is  a  very 
important  officer  in  their  meetings.  The  nomination  of 
clerk  rests  with  the  representatives.  At  the  close  of  the 
first  setting,  the  representatives  convened  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  nomination.  Two  persons  were  put  on  nomi- 
nation, Samuel  Bettle  and  John  Comly.  The  gentleman 
said,  this  morning,  that  Samuel  Bettle  was  the  last  person 
in  the  world,  who  should  have  been  put  on  nomination; 
he  should  have  made  one  exception,  he  should  have  ex- 
cepted John  Comly.  Previous  to  the  yearly  meeting,  he 
had  been  round  the  country  caucussing.     This  was  called 


73 

by  him  and  the  party,  "  holding  conferences,"  but  by  what- 
ever name  it  is  called,  the  object  of  it  was  to  prepare  the 
minds  of  his  friends  for  the  struggle,  and  for  the  approach- 
ing separation.  If  the  representatives  had  submitted  to  his 
nomination,  the  result  may  readily  be  seen.  A  contest 
ensued  among  the  representatives,  each  party  insisting  on 
their  own  clerk  ;  the  "  Hicksite"  party  contended  that  they 
had  a  majority  for  Comly,  while  the  others  insisted  that 
Samuel  Bettle  was  the  most  suitable  man  for  the  station. 
It  seems  that  the  society  of  Friends  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
taking  or  counting  votes  in  any  of  their  deliberations.  It 
was  impossible  to  say  therefore  on  which  side  the  majo- 
rity was.  The  clamour  made  there  cannot  settle  this 
question,  and  there  was  no  other  test  to  which  it  was 
brought.  As  no  decision  could  be  effected  by  the  repre- 
sentatives, what  was  to  be  done  T  Was  the  yearly  meet- 
ing to  stop,  or  was  some  other  course  to  be  adopted  ?  The 
meeting  unquestionably  had  a  right  to  take  the  nomination 
into  its  own  hands.  When  the  representatives  returned 
to  the  meeting  in  the  afternoon,  John  Cox,  one  of  their 
number,  reported  that  they  could  not  agree  on  a  nomina- 
tion. There  is  a  variety  of  evidence  upon  this  point,  some 
say  that  the  representatives  were  to  meet  again,  and  that 
John  Cox  was  not  authorised  to  make  such  report.  But 
this  is  entirely  immaterial.  It  is  not  denied  that  he  did 
make  such  repoi't,  or  that  no  person  was  agreed  on  by  the 
representatives.  The  question  then  necessarily  came  be- 
fore the  yearly  meetino:,  and  there  a  struggle  was  made 
by  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  prevent  Bettle  from  acting,  but 
no  other  person  was  put  in  nomination  by  the  meeting. 
When  it  was  found  that  the  representatives  were  not  likely 
to  harmonise  and  agree  upon  the  clerk,  an  elderly  mem- 
ber of  the  meeting,  observed,  that  he  had  been  accustom- 
ed to  the  business  for  many  years,  and  that  it  had  always 
been  the  practice,  that  until  a  new  clerk  was  appointed, 
the  old  one  should  serve.  This  quieted  the  meeting.  Bettle 
took  his  seat  and  acted,  and  all  opposition  was  withdrawn ; 
here  then  was  unanimity.  That  these  were  the  facts  of 
the  case,  I  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1st 
of  Evidence,  p.  68;  Joseph  Whitall,  vol.  I.  p.  217;  and 
Thomas  Evans,  vol.  I.  p.  265.  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary.  What  can  be  more  decisive 
upon  this  point,  than  the  fact  of  Comly's  taking  his  place 
at  the  table  as  assistant  clerk.  He  showed  some  hesita- 
8 


74 

tion  at  first,  but  when  the  appointment  of  Bettle  was  ac- 
quiesced in  by  the  meeting,  he  (Comly)  took  his  place  at 
the  table  and  acted  as  his  assistant  through  the  whole 
week.  It  is  singular  indeed  that  it  should  now  be  con- 
tended, that  this  appointment  of  clerk  was  such  an  act  of 
domination  as  dissolved  the  meeting,  when  they  them- 
selves acquiesced  in  it,  and  continued  their  attendance 
during  the  whole  of  that  meeting.  This  is  not  all ;  on  the 
next  morning  an  attempt  was  made  to  dissolve  the  yearly 
meeting.  John  Comly  rose  in  his  place,  and  stated  that 
he  felt  conscientious  scruples  under  existing  circumstances 
against  acting  as  assistant  clerk.  He  alluded  to  the 
excitement  wliich  prevailed,  and  the  feelings,  with  which 
they  had  come  together,  and  finally  proposed  that  the 
meeting  should  adjourn  indefinitely.  Here  was  an  insid- 
ious attempt  to  dissolve  the  meeting:  it  was  proposed  to 
adjourn,  not  until  next  year,  nor  to  any  given  time,  but  in- 
definitely. There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  a  precon- 
certed thing;  an  effort  to  dissolve  the  meeting,  in  order 
that  their  own  plans  might  be  more  successfully  carried 
into  eflfect.  That  this  measure  was  concerted  between 
Comly,  and  the  junto  with  which  he  acted,  I  refer  to  the 
testimony  of  Thomas  Evans,  vol.  I.  of  Ev.  p.  269.  The 
meeting  however  refused  to  adjourn ;  many  of  the 
"Hicksites"  themselves  opposed  it,  and  urged  Comly  to 
act  as  assistant  clerk,  and  that  the  meeting  should  proceed 
with  its  business ;  and  Comly  again  took  his  seat  «t  the 
table  and  acted  as  assistant  clerk:  under  these  circum- 
stances then,  can  the  adverse  party  pretend,  that  there 
was  no  regular  clerk,  or  that  the  meeting  was  dissolved, 
when  the  meeting  refused  to  adjourn ;  when  they  them- 
selves acquiesced  in  its  proceedings,  and  remained  during 
the  whole  meeting,  until  seventh  day.  If  the  meeting 
was  dissolved,  as  they  contend,  those  gentlemen  should 
have  withdrawn  immediately,  and  if  they  had  had  the 
majority  and  gone  on  and  set  up  their  yearly  meeting  at 
once,  there  might  then  have  been  some  pretence  to  a  re- 
organization. But  after  acquiescing  in  the  appointment 
of  clerk,  refusing  to  adjourn  indefinitely,  continuing  their 
attendance  at  the  meeting,  from  sitting  to  sitting,  and  par- 
ticipating in  the  transaction  of  its  business,  until  its  regu- 
lar adjournment  to  the  succeeding  year,  this  pretence  is 
certainly  most  extraordinary  and  futile.  Who  can  believe 
that  if  Comly,  who  planned  that  struggle,  had  believed 


75 

the  meeting  to  be  dissolved,  he  would  have  remained  there 
during  the  whole  meeting,  and  continued  to  act  as  the  as- 
sistant clerk ! 

We  have  heard  a  vast  deal  about  the  democratic  prin- 
ciple of  the  majority  governing  in  all  religious  meetings, 
and  in  this  yearly  meeting  as  well  as  others.  The  gentle- 
man who  preceded  me  spent  much  time  upon  this  point ; 
and  no  doubt  his  clients  are  deeply  indebted  to  him  for  the 
discoveries  he  has  made.  He  has  discovered,  it  seems, 
but  where  I  know  not,  that  the  society  of  Friends  hasal- 
ways  acted  upon  the  principle  of  majorities,  and  that  this 
is  the  true  principle,  for  them  to  act  on.  But  will  the  gen- 
tleman pretend  that  it  has  ever  been  the  practice  of  the  so- 
ciety to  elect  its  officers  by  ballot;  or  that  there  was  ever 
such  a  thing  known  in  any  of  its  meetings  as  a  count  of 
members  or  a  vote  taken?  Such  a  thing  is  not  pretended 
even  by  the  witnesses  on  their  own  side ;  nor  can  an  in- 
stance of  it  be  produced  from  the  whole  history  of  the 
society. 

The  clerk,  it  is  admitted  by  all  parties,  is  a  very  impor- 
tant officer  in  the  yearly  meeting,  and  in  all  their  inferior 
meetings.  He  must  be  a  man  of  decision  of  character, 
of  respectability,  of  piety,  and  one  in  whom  the  meetings 
have  confidence.  Samuel  Bottle  had  been  clerk  of  the 
yearly  meeting  for  many  years,  had  served  it  acceptably, 
and  continued  to  do  so  until  this  unfortunate  controversy 
respecting  Elias  Hicks  arose.  When  the  meeting  then 
finally  came  to  an  acquiescence  in  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  Bettle,  what  was  that  but  coming  to  a  conclusion  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  of  the  society?  The  society  do  not 
go  upon  the  ground  that  every  man  coming  into  a  meet- 
ing stands  upon  the  same  footing.  In  town  meetings,  this 
principle  prevails;  but  would  it  be  a  proper  or  a  prudent 
course  to  take  in  religious  meetings,  where  every  member 
of  the  community  may  come  ?  The  society  would  never 
have  existed  to  this  day,  if  it  bad  acted  upon  this  princi- 
ple. The  clerk  in  obtaining  the  sense  of  the  meeting, 
takes  into  consideration  the  age,  experience,  respectabil- 
ity and  weight  of  character  of  the  speakers.  Men  of  age, 
of  long  tried  experience,  and  of  known  piety,  would  be 
entitled  to  more  weight  and  consideration,  than  the  opin- 
ions of  men  young  and  thoughtless ;  men  without  any  re- 
ligious character  or  standing.  When  the  clerk  has  taken 
what  he  believes  to  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting,  if  the 


76 

meeting  does  not  acquiesce  therein,  then  is  the  time  for 
complaint,  and  not  aflemards.  But  in  the  case  before  us, 
the  meeting  did  acquiesce  in  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Bet- 
tie  as  clerk,  and  did  proceed  to  transact  the  regular  busi- 
ness of  the  meeting.  Even  supposing,  however,  that  the 
clerk  was  forced  upon  the  meeting,  will  it  be  contended 
that  that  act  did,  or  could,  dissolve  the  yearly  meeting? 
Such  a  pretence  would  be  absurd.  Those  who  were  dis- 
contented, if  such  there  were,  had  their  remedy.  They 
might  have  withdrawn  immediately,  and  set  up  for  them- 
selves. Observe  the  difference  between  their  conduct  and 
that  of  the  "  Orthodox"  in  Burlington  quarterly  meeting, 
and  in  the  monthly  and  preparative  meeting  of  Chester- 
field. When  they  discovered  that  persons  were  present 
"who  had  no  right  to  be  there,  and  who  would  not  with- 
draw, and  that  a  part  of  the  meeting  were  determined  to 
secede  from  their  former  connexion,  'and  attach  them- 
selves to  the  new  head,  they  adjourned  their  meeting,  and 
left  the  house  in  peace.  They  did  not  remain  to  occasion 
trouble  and  disturbance.  VVhy  did  not  the  "Hicksite" 
party  in  the  yearly  meeting  take  the  same  course?  They 
would  then  have  had  some  ground  for  the  allegation  that 
their  meeting  is  a  reorganization  and  continuance  of  the 
regular,  established  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  in  Phila- 
delphia. But  having  acquiesced  in  the  -appointment  of  the 
clerk,  having  remained  there  and  taken  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  yearly  meeting,  until  its  close,  they  can- 
not now  object  to  that  appointment,  nor  contend  that  it 
dissolved  the  yearly  n)eeting. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  every  community,  a  re- 
ligious community  as  well  as  any  other,  may  adopt  its 
own  rules  for  determining  questions  that  come  before  it. 
Is  the  democratic  principle  that  a  majority  prevails,  so 
strong  and  powerful  that  a  religious  body  can  adopt  no 
other?  Cannot  Friends  take  their  own  course  for  settling 
subjects  which  come  under  discussion  in  their  meetings? 
The  opposite  counsel  would  seem  to  hold  out  the  idea  that 
the  majority  must  always  be  the  test ;  but  if  a  society  has 
adopted  another  principle,  will  this  court  dissent  from  it, 
and  attempt  to  set  up  another?  No.  Every  society  has 
a  right  to  adopt  their  own  principle,  and  the  court  will 
leave  them  to  act  upon  it ;  or  if  they  do  not  choose  to 
continue  that  mode,  to  adopt  another  at  their  pleasure. 
The  society  of  Friends  then,  have  adopted  another  mode 


77 

of  settling  questions,  and  it  is  not  for  this  court,  or  any 
other,  to  change  it  for  them.  It  is  in  vain  therefore  to 
talk  about  majorities,  or  to  inquire  on  which  side  was  the 
greater  number  of  speakers.  All  the  witnesses  on  both 
sides  admit,  that  this  never  was  the  practice  of  the  soci- 
ety, but  that  they  waited  in  solemn  silence  until  they  all 
acquiesced,  or  until  all  opposition  ceased.  Silence  then 
having  been  restored  after  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Bettle, 
and  all  parties  having  acquiesced,  he  w^as  duly  appointed 
even  upon  their  own  principles;  and  I  beg  the  court  to 
recollect,  that  he  was  the  only  person  nominated  to  the 
meeting  for  clerk :  Comly  was  not  even  put  on  nomina- 
tion there. 

Where  is  the  evidence,  I  would  ask,  of  their  having  the 
majority  which  they  allege?  If  they  meant  to  rely  on 
that  fact,  they  ought  to  have  made  it  out ;  but  they  have 
made  out  no  such  fact.  They  have  called  several  wit- 
nesses to  prove  that  John  Comly  was  nominated  before 
the  representatives,  and  that  there  was,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  witnesses,  a  majority  there  in  his  favour.  But  was 
there  any  thing  done  from  which  they  could  form  that 
opinion?  There  was  nothing;  there  was  neither  a  vote 
taken,  nor  a  count  of  members  made.  When  they  re- 
turned into  the  yearly  meeting,  it  is  not  pretended  that 
they  had  a  majority  for  Comly,  for  he  was  not  even  nom- 
inated there.  There  cannot  therefore  remain  a  question 
as  to  the  regularity  of  Bettle's  appointment. 

But  will  the  court  go  into  the  inquiry  whether  he  was 
duly  appointed  or  not?  It  is  not  revelant  to  this  cause. 
He  was  clerk  de  facto.  Will  the  court  inquire  whether  he 
was  clerk  dejure?  He  was  elected  ;  will  the  court  under- 
take to  say  he  was  not  duly  elected  ?  He  was  the  acting 
clerk.  Will  the  court  undertake  to  say  whether  his  ap- 
pointment was  proper?  I  think  not.  The  court  will  take 
the  facts  as  they  find  them,  and  finding  Samuel  Bettle 
clerk  de  facto,  it  is  sutficient  for  their  purpose. 

The  point  we  insist  upon  is,  that  even  admitting  the  ob- 
jections of  the  opposite  counsel  in  their  utmost  latitude, 
there  was  not  that  irregularity  in  the  appointment  of  clerk, 
or  in  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting,  which  could  destroy 
the  legal  existence  of  the  meeting.  If  therefore  the  court 
should  even  doubt  whether  he  was  regularly  appointed, 
which  I  apprehend  they  cannot,  will  they  undertake  to 
say  that  that  irregularity  dissolved  the  meeting?  That 
6* 


78 

could  not  be  said  without  going  contrary  to  the  sense  of 
every  man  who  took  part  in  the  deliberations  of  that  as- 
sembly. 

There  is  another  ground  of  complaint  on  which  they  rely. 
It  is  said,  that  a  number  of  important  questions  were  not 
acted  upon  by  that  yearly  meeting.  It  is  true  that  there 
were  such  questions  brought  before  that  meeting;  but  they 
had  all  grown  out  of  the  controversy  respecting  the  doc- 
trines of  Elias  Hicks,  and  they  were  disposed  of  by  gene- 
ral, I  might  almost  say,  by  universal  consent.  Some  were 
postponed,  and  some  referred  back  to  the  meetings  from 
which  they  came.  But  supposing  they  were  not  acted  on, 
it  was  a  conclusion  come  to  by  universal  consent,  the  meet- 
ing therefore  could  not  have  been  dissolved  by  that  cause. 
The  meeting  had  an  undoubted  right  either  to  act  upon 
them,  or  to  defer  acting  on  them.  Even  if  their  proceed- 
ings in  these  cases  had  been  irregularly  postponed,  it  could 
not  have  dissolved  the  meeting.  If  it  had  been  thought 
best  not  to  act  at  all  upon  the  business,  at  that  time,  on  ac- 
count of  the  excitement  which  prevailed,  the  fact  of  their 
not  having  acted  on  them,  could  not  put  an  end  to  the 
yearly  meeting. 

Another  measure  complained  of  is  the  appointment  of 
what  is  called  the  yearly  meeting's  committee.  It  appears 
that  upon  the  last  day  of  the  meeting,  on  seventh  day, 
(Saturday)  morning,  a  proposition  came  from  the  women's 
meeting  to  appoint  a  committee  for  the  purpose  of  visiting 
the  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings.  All  the  witnesses 
admit  that  the  appointment  of  such  committees  was  in  the 
Tegular  order  of  the  society,  and  that  under  other  circum- 
stances than  those  which  then  existed,  could  not  have  been 
objectionable.  It  seems  however  that  when  the  proposal 
was  made,  an  objection  was  raised  to  it  by  the  discontent- 
ed party.  But  after  it  had  been  some  time  under  discus- 
sion, all  opposition  was  finally  withdrawn,  and  it  passed 
with  great  unanimity.  These  then  are  all  the  acts  com- 
plained of  at  that  yearly  meeting;  and  now  I  would  in- 
quire, whether,  upon  their  own  ground,  there  is  a  single 
act  alleged  which  could  extinguish  and  destroy  that  origi- 
nal  meeting.  The  court  will  see  that  at  that  time  there 
was  no  idea  entertained  that  that  meeting  was  dissolved. 
It  was  an  after-thought,  adopted  by  the  party,  but  which 
never  originated  with  themselves.  I  will  refer  the  court  for 
a  history  of  the  separation  to  the  evidence  of  Halliday 


79 

Jackson.  He  is  one  of  that  party,  and  an  active  man  in 
the  separation,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  any 
thing  he  details  unfavourable  to  his  own  party,  w^ould  be 
intentionally  erroneous.  He  gives  us  a  minute  statement 
of  their  proceedings,  from  which  it  appears  that  before  the 
Yearly  Meeting  of  1827  convened,  John  Comly  had  opened 
to  him  (Jackson)  a  prospect  of  this  separation.  It  further 
appears  that  upon  fourth  day  evening,  of  the  yearly  meet- 
ing week,  a  junto  of  about  twenty  got  together  in  a  private 
house,  and  there  concluded  to  dissolve  their  connexion  with 
the  original  yearly  meeting.  The  separation  was  then 
agreed  upon,  and  a  plan  contrived  for  carrying  it  into  ef- 
fect.*' A  committee  was  appointed  from  among  themselves 
to  draft  an  address,  and  they  then  adjourned  to  fifth  day 
evening,  at  the  Green  street  meeting  house.  On  Thursday 
(fifth  day)  evening,  as  many  as  two  or  three  hundred  at- 
tended there.  The  committee  of  the  junto  had  prepared 
an  address,  to  those  who  acted  with  them,  which  was  read 
and  considered,  and  they  then  adjourned  to  meet  again,  on 
sixth  day  evening.  These  proceedings  took  place  during 
the  j'early  meeting,  and  while  they  were  daily  attending 
its  sittings,  and  yet  they  now  aver  that  this  going  off  or 
separation,  dissolved  that  meeting.  Upon  the  evening  of 
sixth  day,  it  does  not  appear,  that  I  recollect,  what  was 
done,  but  they  adjourned  to  meet  again  on  the  rising  of  the 
yearly  meeting.  What  was  this  but  a  recognition  of  the 
existence  of  that  meeting,  and  of  its  being  the  original 
yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  an  acknowledgment 
that  they  were  waiting  for  its  regular  adjournment?  No 
idea  was  thrown  out,  or  entertained,  that  the  meeting  was 
to  be  reorganized,  but  simply  that  they  were  preparing  to 
withdraw  from  it;  upon  seventh  day  morning,  after  the 
yearly  meeting  was  regularly  adjourned,  they  withdrew 
from  the  house,  and  went  to  Green  street  meeting  house, 
not  as  the  yearly  meeting,  for  that  had  adjourned:  they 
went  as  individuals,  as  dissatisfied  men,  not  to  reorganize 
the  old  yearly  meeting,  but  to  make  a  new  and  distinct 
meeting  for  themselves.  Upon  the  morning  of  Saturday, 
the  address  which  had  been  prepared  was  again  read,  ap- 
proved of,  and  adopted;  they  then  separated.  This  ad- 
dress was  \he\r  manifesto  in  which  they  declared  the  cause 
of  their  separation,  and  of  which  I  shall  speak  hereafter. 
In  consequence  of  this  address,  a  meeting  took  place  in  the 
sixth  month  following,  at  which  they  agreed  upon  and  is- 


80 

sued  what  they  call  an  epistle,  but  which  may,  I  think,  pro- 
perly be  denominated  their  declaration  of  independence.  In 
this  document  they  declare  their  intention  of  separating, 
and  call  upon  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings,  which  may 
be  prepared  for  such  a  measure,  and  upon  individuals  in 
unity  with  them  and  favourable  to  their  views,  to  attend  in 
Philadelphia  in  the  following  tenth  month,  for  the  purpose, 
as  they  say,  of  holding  a  yearly  meeting.  Is  there  any  thing 
in  this,  which  looks  like  an  idea  in  their  own  minds,  of  the 
non-existence  of  the  original  yearly  meeting,  or  that  it  did 
not  continue  to  be  a  yearly  meeting,  as  much  so,  as  if  this 
cabal  had  never  got  together?  It  is  not  my  intention  to  oc- 
cupy much  of  the  time  of  the  court  in  reading,  but  this  is 
a  document  of  considerable  importance,  and  I  must  beg 
leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  some  parts  of  it. 
It  is  the  Epistle  agreed  upon  by  the  "Hicksite"  party  in 
sixth  month  (June,)  1827,  and  is  to  be  found  in  2nd  vol.  of 
Evidence,  456.  It  says,  "  We  therefore,  under  a  solemn 
and  weighty  sense  of  the  importance  of  this  concern,  and 
with  ardent  desires  that  all  our  movements  may  be  under 
the  guidance  of  Him  who  only  can  lead  us  in  safety,  have 
agreed  to  propose  for  your  consideration,  the  propriety  of 
holding  a  yearly  meeting  f on-  Friends  in  unity  with  us,  resid- 
ing within  the  limits  of  those  quarterly  meetings,  heretofore 
represented,  in  the  yearly  meeting  held  in  Philadelphia,  for 
which  purpose  it  is  recommended,  that  quarterly  and  month- 
ly meetings  which  maybe  prepared  for  such  a  meusure,  should 
appoint  representatives  to  meet  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  third 
second  day  in  the  tenth  month  next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  in  company  with  other  membersyarowraWe  to  our 
views,  there  to  hold  a  yearly  meeting  of  men  and  women 
friends,"  &c. 

Not  one  word  is  here  said  about  reorganizing  or  con- 
tinuing the  yearly  meeting;  but  the  invitation  given  is  sim- 
ply to  hold  a  yearly  meeting.  And  to  whom  is  this  invita- 
tion addressed?  If  this  meeting  was  designed  as  a  continu- 
ance of  the  original  yearly  meeting,  should  not  the  address 
have  been  to  all  the  members  of  that  yearly  meeting?  If 
they  meant  to  reorganize,  should  they  not  have  called  upon 
all?  Certainly  they  should  ;  and  had  such  an  idea  then 
been  entertained,  they  would  have  invited  all  the  members. 
But  the  call  is  upon  those  only  who  are  prepared  for  the 
measure :  those  in  unity  with  them  and  favourable  to  their 
views.    Can  they  now  pretend  that  they  met  there  as  the 


81 

original  yearlj'-  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  only  for  the 
purpose  of  reorganizing  it,  when  their  own  epistle  express- 
ly states  that  their  meeting  was  only  for  persons  in  unity_ 
with  them  ?  This  document  shows  that  they  had  no  thought 
or  design  of  reorganizing.  In  their  address  of  fourth 
month,  they  talk  of  "  a  quiet  retreat."  What  do  they  mean 
by  this  expression?  Do  they  mean  to  avow  an  intention 
of  overthrowing  the  original  yearly  meeting?  It  must 
require  something  more  than  a  quiet  retreat  to  effect  this. 
Could  any  one  understand  from  their  own  language,  any- 
thing else  than  that  they  meant  to  secede  and  set  up  for 
themselves,  to  declare  independence  of  the  original  meet- 
ing ?  Mr.  Lower,  and  Mr.  Halliday  Jackson,  both  their 
own  witnesses,  place  it  upon  the  true  ground.  They  call 
it,  in  their  evidence,  a  revolution,  and  such  it  was.  It  was 
a  revolution,  a  secession.  We  do  not  complain  of  this. 
They  had  a  right  to  withdraw  from  the  society  if  they 
chose  to  do  so.  But  having  withdrawn,  and  dissolved 
their  connexion  with  it,  they  have  no  right  to  go  on  with 
the  view  of  overthrowing  the  existence  of  the  original 
yearly  meeting.  It  is  impossible  for  the  court  to  read  the 
epistle,  and  entertain  any  other  idea  than  that  which  I 
have  stated.  They  had  a  right  in  their  addresses  to  in- 
clude or  exclude  the  "Orthodox"  party,  as  they  thought 
proper ;  but  the  fact  of  their  excluding  them  and  giving 
the  invitation  in  the  manner  they  did,  proves  conclusively 
that  their  purpose  was  to  form  a  new  yearly  meeting,  of 
their  own  sort. 

The  court  will  observe  moreover  that  they  call  upon 
quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  which  may  be  prepared 
for  the  measure,  to  send  representatives  to  their  new  year- 
ly meeting.  The  witnesses  all  agree  that  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  society,  monthly  meetings  cannot  send  repre- 
sentatives to  the  yearly  meeting.  The  members  in  their 
individual  capacity,  may  attend  if  they  please,  but  repre- 
sentatives can  only  be  sent  by  the  quarters.  Here  was  a 
departure  from  the  discipline  and  established  order  of  the 
society,  making  the  constitution  of  the  new  meeting  dif- 
ferent from  the  old  one.  How  do  they  justify  this  meas- 
ure ?  Do  they  show  any  authority  for  it  ?  Does  this  little 
book  (the  discipline)  which  the  gentleman  has  held  up  to 
the  court,  as  being  their  guide,  contain  any  rule  authoriz- 
ing such  a  proceeding?  No  such  thing  is  to  be  found  in 
it.     We  have  heard  much  about  majorities,  and  of  their 


82 

power;  but  if  a  majority  in  a  meeting  may  destroy  it,  may 
take  away  rights  which  are  vested  in  its  members,  this  is 
certainly  giving  the  question  of  majorities  a  power  and 
importance  which  it  never  had  before. 

The  "Hicksite"  party  thus  have  organized  a  new  year- 
ly meeting  within  the  precincts  of  a  regularly  established 
and  existing  yearly  meeting,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
the  society  of  Friends.  They  say  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  are  similar  to  those  under  which  the  original 
yearly  meeting  was  established  in  1681.  But  this  is  not 
the  fact.  There  was  then  no  yearly  meeting  existing 
within  the  limits  over  which  the  proposed  yearly  meeting 
was  to  have  jurisdiction,  or  which  claimed  as  its  members 
the  persons  who  were  to  be  included  in  the  new  yearly 
meeting.  They  met  then,  not  within  the  limits  of  another 
yearly  meeting,  but  where  no  yearly  meeting  had  yet  been 
formed.  Monthly  meetings  attached  probably  to  no  quar- 
terly meetings;  quarterly  meetings,  and  friends  in  their 
individual  capacities,  met  and  formed  a  new  yearly  meet- 
ing. But  even  then,  though  there  was  no  yearly  meeting 
claiming  direct  jurisdiction  over  them,  they  applied  to 
Other  yearly  meetings  then  existing  on  this  continent,  for 
their  consent  and  approbation,  before  they  established  the 
new  meeting.  Decow  in  his  answer  states  that  the  yearly 
meeting  formed  at  Burlington  in  1681  originated  from  a 
monthly  meeting.  What  did  the  "  Hicksite"  yearly  meet- 
ing originate  from  1  Not  from  any  regular  or  established 
meeting  of  the  society,  but  from  a  junto,  which  met  at  a 
private  house,  agreed  on  a  separation  from  an  existing 
yearly  meeting,  and  adopted  measures  to  carry  that  sep- 
aration into  effect.  There  is  then  nothing  similar  in  the 
two  cases;  there  is  nothing  to  be  found  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  yearly  meeting  in  1681,  which  can  justify  the 
course  pursued  by  the  "Hicksite"  party  in  1827.  No,  it 
must  come  back  to  the  ground  upon  which  it  w-as  placed 
by  Mr.  Lower,  and  Mr.  Jackson.  It  was  a  revolution,  a 
secession,  the  establishment  of  a  new  meeting,  and  a  new 
society.  They  had  a  right  thus  to  separate  and  to  form 
a  society  for  themselves,  they  did  so,  and  the  consequences 
of  that  act,  they  must  submit  to. 

I  now  proceed  to  their  first  yearly  meeting,  held  in 
tenth  montn  1827,  in  Green  street  meeting  house.  We 
find  from  the  testimony,  that  there  were  representatives 
attended  from   five   quarterly  meetings   out  of  eleven. 


83 

There  were  eleven  quarters  attached  to  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia,  and  of  these  only  five  sent  representa- 
tives to  the  nevv  meeting.  Six  quarters  were  unrepresent- 
ed in  this  meeting ;  they  had  not  even  a  majority  about 
which  they  have  said  so  much.  There  were  also  one  or 
two  monthly  meetings  represented  there.  Those  then  who 
composed  that  meeting  were  representatives  from  five 
quarterly  meetings,  two  monthly  meetings,  and  other  indi- 
viduals favouring  their  views.  1  would  now  ask  the  court, 
whether  this  meeting,  so  constituted,  can  have  any  shadow 
of  claim  to  being  a  continuation  of  the  old  yearly  meet- 
ing? Is  there  any  thing  that  looks  like  it,  or  that  can  bear 
them  out  in  their  pretensions  ?  Every  man  who  looks  at 
the  facts  must  see  there  is  nothing. 

Mr.  Lower  makes  a  most  curious  mistake,  when  he 
undertakes  to  fix  the  time  of  holding  their  first  meet- 
ing. Vol.  1  Evidence,  p.  468.  He  was  asked  "when  the 
yearly  meeting  to  which  he  belonged  was  first  held  or 
opened?'  His  reply  is  that  "it  was  first  opened  in  10th 
month  1837."  His  examination  was  not  then  closed,  but 
postponed  to  another  day;  meanwhile  it  seems  he  discov- 
ered that  he  had  made  a  great  mistake,  or  somebody  had 
discovered  it  for  him,  and  when  he  came  to  be  examined 
again,  he  dates  it  back  to  the  meeting  in  Burlington  in 
1681.  The  passage  is  a  very  curious  one,  and  I  shall  beg 
leave  to  read  it  to  the  court.  The  witness  says,  Vol.  1. 
Evidence,  p.  472.  "  I  would  beg  leave  to  recur  to  my  tes- 
timony at  its  close  on  the  evening  before  last,  and  state 
that  1  was  fatigued  with  a  hard  day's  service,  under  the 
peculiar  circumstances  that  I  was  then  placed.  I  was 
fagged  down  and  was  not  aware  of  my  condition,  till  I 
came  to  reflect  upon  what  had  passed,  and  recurring  to 
my  feelings  ;  and  I  tliink  it  is  but  justice  to  state,  that  I 
misapprehended  the  question  that  was  put  to  me  relative 
to  the  time  of  our  holding  our  first  yearly  meeting,  after 
the  reorganisation  of  society,  that  is,  that  it  was  in  con- 
trast with  that  yearly  meeting  that  was  held  in  Arch 
street,  and  which  for  the  reasons  that  I  have  stated  in 
divers  instances,  ceases  to  be  a  yearly  meeting  of  the 
society  of  Friends.  And  I  would  therefore  desire,  that 
my  answer  to  that  question,  should  be  according  to  the 
account  contained  in  the  book  of  discipline,  that  our  first 
yearly  meeting  was  held  at  Burlington  in  1G81." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  the  counsel  or  some  other 


64 

kind  friend,  had  informed  this  witness  during  the  interval 
of  his  examination,  that  it  was  necessary  to  consider  their 
meeting  as  a  continuance  of  the  original  meeting,  that  they 
must  not  go  upon  the  ground  of  its  being  a  new  meeting, 
and  therefore  the  witness  undertakes  to  correct  the  mis- 
take and  to  apologise  for  falhng  into  it. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  this  meeting 
being  set  up  within  the  precincts  of  another,  the  original 
meeting  being  regularly  adjourned  and  continued,  and  now 
existing,  the  court  must  see  that  this  is  not  the  same  year- 
ly meeting,  but  a  new  meeting  and  a  secession  from  the 
original  meeting,  and  from  the  society  of  Friends.  What 
is  the  opinion  of  Friends  upon  this  subject  1  Of  all  other 
meetings  of  Friends,  whose  minds  have  not  been  poisoned 
with  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks?  Is  there  any  yearly 
meeting  of  Friends  in  this  country,  or  in  Europe,  which 
acknowledges  this  new  meeting  as  a  meeting  of  the  society? 
The  testimony  tells  us  there  is  not  one.  The  yearly  meet- 
ing in  London,  which  is  the  parent  meeting,  considers  the 
meeting  in  Arch  street  as  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends, 
and  holds  regular  correspondence  with  it  as  such.  They 
consider  the  Green  street  meeting  as  spurious,  as  not 
being  a  part  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  refuse  having 
any  intercourse  with  them.  Here  then  we  have  the  opi- 
nion of  a  meeting  entirely  uncontaminated  with  the  prin- 
ciples which  produced  the  new  meeting,  and  uninfluenced 
by  the  excitement  which  grew  out  of  the  controversy. 
They  recognise  the  meeting  in  Arch  sti'eet,  and  decline 
any  communication  with  the  other.  The  yearly  meeting 
of  New  England  also  acknowledges  the  old  yearly  meet- 
ing, and  disclaims  all  connexion  with  the  new  one.  The 
yearly  meeting  of  Virginia  does  the  same.  It  acknow- 
ledges the  yearly  meeting  in  Arch  street,  as  the  regular 
yearly  meeting,  and  refuses  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with 
the  other.  Such  is  also  the  case  with  the  yearly  meeting 
of  North  Carolina.  They  have  all  denounced  the  princi- 
ples of  Hicks  as  being  repugnant  to  Quakerism,  and  de- 
clared that  the  meetings  set  up  by  his  adherents  are  not 
meetings  of  the  society  of  Friends.  In  all  the  yearly  meet- 
ings I  have  named  there  are  no  "  Hicksites ;"  they  have 
been  spared  the  discord  and  division  which  the  preaching 
of  Hicks  produced,  and  we  find  wherever  there  is  no  Hicks- 
ism,  there  Friends  disown  the  new  meeting  and  recognise 
the  meeting  in  Arch  street,  as  the  yearly  meeting  of  the 


85 

society  of  Friends.  Is  not  this  the  strongest  evidence  that 
this  new  meeting  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  is  set  up  in  vio- 
lation of  the  principles  of  Friends  ?  It  is  true  they  have 
been  recognised  by  a  division  of  certain  other  yearly 
meetings,  but  it  is  only  where  Hicksitism  has  attained 
footing,  and  by  those  who  have  adopted  it  as  their  own 
religion.  A  part  of  the  yearly  meeting  in  JMew  York,  who 
are  of  this  character,  recognise  the  new  meeting  and  cor- 
respond with  it.  In  Ohio  a  similar  schism  has  also  taken 
place,  and  a  part  recognise  the  meeting  in  Green  street:  the 
other  portions  of  these  meetings  however  do  not  acknow- 
ledge it.  From  an  examination  of  other  yearly  meetings 
where  a  division  has  occurred,  it  appears  there  are  none 
who  recognise  this  new  meeting  except  those  who  have 
been  guilty  of  the  same  schism,  of  seceding  in  the  same 
way.  Mr.  Lower  attempts  to  account  for  this,  and  I  call 
the  attention  of  the  court  to  his  evidence  on  the  subject,  as 
it  affords  a  fine  specimen  of  his  christian  charity.  He  says, 
vol.  I.  Evidence,  pp.  468,  9,  "The  yearly  meeting  of  Lon- 
don does  not  correspond  with  the  yearly  meeting  of  Penn- 
sylvania, New  Jersey,  &c.  We  understand,  I  think,  by 
information,  perhaps  from  the  clerk  of  the  London  yearly 
meeting,  communicated  to  the  clerk  of  our  yearly  meeting, 
that  they  decHne  corresponding  with  our  yearly  meeting; 
and  I  understand  that  the  reason  alleged  is,  that  the  meet- 
ing for  sufferings  of  the  Orthodox  yearly  meeting  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, have  so  defamed  us  in  their  communication  to 
Friends  of  the  London  yearly  meeting,  as  to  induce  them 
to  submit  our  communication  or  epistle  to  the  examination 
of  perhaps  two  or  three  individuals,  to  report  whether  such 
communications  are  fit  to  be  read  in  the  meeting  or  not. 
The  meeting,  I  think,  has  hence  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
not  to  hear  those  communications  read,  when  those  two  or 
three  individuals  made  their  report,  and  the  great  body  of 
the  society  remain  ignorant  of  us,  excepting  what  is  sup- 
posed to  be  detailed  out  to  them  by  those  who  are  in  strict 
unity  with  the  orthodox  yearly  meeting  here.  As  to  the 
Friends  in  New  England,  they  have  been,  1  think,  in  a  laine 
way  some  time  back,  and  I  have  reason  to  apprehend  they 
are  not  much  better  now,  and  we  have  no  correspondence 
with  them.  The  Virginia  yearly  meeting  which  I  think 
the  orthodox  make  a  spread  about,  calling  it  the  ancient 
yearly  meeting  of  Virginia,'  from  what  information  I  have 
of  that  ancient  concern,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  a  very  little 
9 


concern.  I  should  suppose  from  what  I  have  understood, 
that  the  whole  body  of  its  member^  together,  do  not  amount 
to  a  larger  number  than  the  members  of  Green  street 
monthly  meeting.  Carolina  yearly  meeting  does  not  cor- 
respond with  us.  These  men  of  leisure,  these  rich  men,  I 
have  spoken  of  in  Philadelphia,  were  the  medium  of  the 
communication  of  the  bounty  of  the  great  body  of  Friends 
to  help  them  and  their  poor  oppressed  blacks,  out  of  their 
trouble,  as  far  as  that  little  bounty  would  go  in  such  a  mat- 
ter, which,  together  with  a  sort  of  missionary  influence, 
has  had,  1  think,  a  powerful  eflect  in  alienating  their  minds, 
by  infusing  prejudices  against  us  in  them." 

We  see  then,  if  the  court  please,  that  all  the  yearly  meet- 
ings of  the  society  of  Friends  refuse  to  acknowledge  this 
new  yearly  meeting.  It  now  remains  for  the  court  to  say 
whether  they  will  recognise  it.  Will  you  pronounce  it  to 
be  a  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends,  when  that  society 
itself  declares  that  it  is  not  so  1  Will  you  recognise  a  meet- 
ing which  is  acknowledged  by  no  body  of  Friends  in  the 
world,  and  by  those  persons  only  who  are  connected  in  the 
same  schism.  The  court  I  think  must  consider  it  as  a 
schism,  as  a  new  meeting,  as  a  new  head  to  a  new  society, 
and  all  those  who  have  separated  from  the  original  quar- 
terly, monthly,  and  preparative  meetings,  and  united  them- 
selves to  this  new  head,  must  be  considered  in  the  same 
light,  as  having  seceded  from  the  great  head  to  which  they 
were  originally  attached. 

Wednesday  morning,  January  Wth,  10  A.  M. — My  object 
yesterday,  was  to  prove  that  the  separation  of  the  "Hicks- 
ite"  party  which  took  place  in  April,  1827,  did  not  extin- 
guish or  dissolve  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends;  that  there 
was  nothing  took  place  during  that  meeting  which  could 
have  merged  or  put  an  end  to  its  existence.  I  shall  now 
proceed  to  show  that  nothing  transpired  before  that  time 
which  could  have  destroyed  or  put  an  end  to  it.  If  nothing 
occurred  at  or  before  that  meeting  to  extinguish  it,  nothing 
that  has  happened  since  could  produce  that  result.  The 
subsequent  circumstances  which  the  gentlemen  have  so 
much  relied  upon,  are  the  effects  of  these  difficulties  in  the 
society,  not  the  causes.  The  gentlemen  mistake  effects  for 
causes.  We  contend  that  it  was  a  real  difference  of 
opinion  about  essential  religious  doctrines,  which  gave  rise 
to  all  these  difficulties,  and  produced  the  separation;  and 
that  all  the  subjects  of  complaint  on  which  they  lay  so 


87 

much  stress,  grew  out  of  that  difference.  In  order  to  sa- 
tisfy the  court  that  there  were  prior  difficulties  or  griev- 
ances, and  that  their  separation  grew  out  of  these,  they  go 
back  to  the  year  1819.  Before,  however,  I  take  up  their 
different  grounds  of  complaint,  permit  me  to  make  one  ob- 
servation. Your  honours  will  perceive  from  the  testimony 
of  the  witnesses  on  both  sides,  that  these  subjects  of  com- 
plaint grew  out  of  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks,  and  to  those 
doctrines  which  he  publicly  promulgated  in  his  testimonies 
before  the  world.  The  cause  of  complaint  which  the  gen- 
tleman states  to  have  occurred  in  1819,  is  an  alleged  dis- 
respect shown  to  Elias  Hicks.  It  is  in  itself  a  very  trifling 
thing;  one  which  such  a  man  as  Elias  Hicks  is  represented 
to  be,  or  indeed  any  one  else,  ought  to  have  thought  very 
little  about.  In  the  year  1819,  when  on  a  visit  to  Phila- 
delphia, he  left  the  men's  meeting  at  Pine  street,  and  went 
into  the  women's  meeting,  and  while  he  was  there,  an  ad- 
journment of  the  men's  meeting  took  place.  This,  it  is 
said,  was  disrespectful  to  Elias  Hicks,  and  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  usage  to  adjourn  the  men's  meeting  while  the  wo- 
men's meeting  was  sitting,  or  while  a  member  of  the  men's 
meeting  was  there.  But  even  if  we  admit  this  to  be  the 
case,  it  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  disrespect  to  the 
man;  and  is  this  a  ground  of  serious  complaint;  aground 
on  which  to  rest  the  justification  of  their  secession  from 
the  society?  Is  it  a  circumstance  which  this  court  can 
seriously  regard?  But  it  appears  that  it  was  not  contrary 
to  the  usage  of  the  society  for  the  men's  meeting  thus  to 
adjourn.  All  the  witnesses  who  speak  on  this  subject,  those 
of  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  admit  that  the  yearly  meeting  had 
repeatedly  done  the  same  thing  (see  A.  Lower's  testimony, 
vol.  I.  p.  410,);  the  monthly  meeting  therefore  had  the  ex- 
ample of  the  highest  body  in  the  society  for  its  adjourn- 
ment. 

We  do  not  however  mean  to  deny  that  there  was,  even 
as  early  as  this  period,  an  objection  to  the  doctrines  and 
preaching  of  Elias  Hicks.  The  sentiments  which  he  had 
at  that  time  avowed,  had  alienated  many  of  the  aged  and 
solid  members  of  the  society;  they  viewed  him  as  a  new 
light;  the  introducer  of  new  doctrines  calculated  to  disturb 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  society,  and  to  mislead  the 
members;  as  one  aiming  to  become  the  founder  of  a  new 
sect;  they  therefore  felt  much  uneasines?  and  concern  re- 
specting him. 


88 

Another  subject  of  complaint  is,  that  at  a  subsequent 
period  when  Elias  Hicks  was  coming  to  Philadelphia  on 
a  visit,  some  of  the  elders  in  that  city  thought  it  their  duty 
td.interfere  respecting  the  doctrines  which  he  promulgated. 
He  was  coming  there  under  the  pretence  of  making  a  re- 
ligious visit  to  the  meetings  and  families  of  Friends.  If 
the  elders  really  believed  that  he  was  unsound  in  his  doc- 
trines, that  he  was  spreading  errors  through  the  society, 
calculated  to  mislead  its  honest  but  uninformed  members, 
that  his  conduct  was  calculated  to  produce  a  schism  and 
division  among  them,  was  it  not  proper,  was  it  not  their 
duty  as  officers  and  guardians  of  the  church,  entrusted 
with  the  special  oversight  and  care  of  the  ministers,  to 
oppose  him  in  every  proper  method?  If  there  was  any 
body  competent  to  judge  of  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks; 
to  form  a  correct  opinion  of  the  consequences  likely  to  re- 
sult from  the  course  he  was  pursuing,  the  elders  were  that 
body.  Men  selected  for  one  of  the  highest  and  most  re- 
sponsible stations  in  the  church,  chosen  for  their  piety, 
their  experience,  and  religious  worth ;  clothed  with  a  pub- 
lic character,  and  deputed  to  watch  over  the  general  in- 
terests and  welfare  of  the  society,  and  over  the  preach- 
ing and  doctrines  of  the  ministers.  In  the  stand  which 
these  men  took  against  the  principles  of  Elias  Hicks,  was 
there  any  departure  from  the  discipline  of  the  society? 
The"Hicksite"  party  allege  that  there  was:  they  say  that 
those  elders  should  have  pursued  a  different  course;  that 
they  should  have  complained  against  Elias  Hicks  to  his 
meeting  at  home,  the  monthly  meeting  at  Jericho,  which 
as  they  say,  was  the  proper  body  to  deal  with  him. 

But  is  there  any  thing  in  the  discipline  to  prove  that 
w  hen  he  was  in  Philadelphia  upon  a  visit,  the  elders  there 
had  no  right  to  treat  with  him?  There  is  nothing.  On  the 
contrary,  he  was  under  their  care,  and  subject  to  their 
advice  and  admonition  while  there,  as  much  so  as  any 
other  member.  The  elders  of  Philadelphia  therefore,  un- 
dertook to  interfere,  as  they  had  a  right  to  do,  and  as  they 
were  bound  to  do,  on  account  of  the  doctrines  which  he 
was  known  to  promulgate  in  his  public  testimonies.  It  is 
not  pretended,  that  if,  after  he  left  Long  Island,  he  had 
preached  sentiments  adverse  to  the  known  testimonies  of 
the  society,  respecting  war,  oatlis,  &c.  the  elders  of  that 
city  would  have  had  no  right  to  deal  with  him ;  and  yet 
they  say,  that  when  he  undertook  to  advance  doctrines 


89 

contrary  to  the  principles  of  Friends,  and  calculated  to 

Eroduce  a  schism,  they  had  no  right  to  interfere.     They. 
ave  nothing,  however,  to  sustain  them  in  this  assertion, 
and  the  one  is  as  proper  and  necessary  as  the  other. 

But,  if  the  court  please,  I  am  willing  to  put  it  on  an- 
other footing.  It  was  impossible  to  stop  him  in  the  pro- 
mulgation of  these  sentiments  in  any  other  way.  He  has 
been  represented  here  as  being  strong  in  the  affections  and 
hearts  of  those  connected  with  him.  Jt  is  true,  he  was  so, 
and  this  made  him  the  more  dangerous.  The  confidence 
that  was  reposed  in  him,  his  standing,  his  popularity,  and 
his  influence,  made  him  a  most  dangerous  man  to  incul- 
cate unsound  doctrines.  This  very  circumstance  made  it 
the  more  necessary  for  the  elders  to  take  the  course  they 
did.  The  meeting  at  Jericho  had  adopted  his  doctrines; 
they  approved  of  him,  and  of  all  that  he  did.  It  was  in 
vain  then  to  apply  to  it  for  a  remedy ;  it  held  that  he  was 
sound  in  the  faith.  They  might  as  well  have  complained 
to  Elias  Hicks  himself;  and  they  had  no  alternative  left 
but  to  take  the  course  they  did. 

We  find  then,  that  a  meeting  of  some  of  the  elders  and 
a  few  other  friends,  took  place  in  Philadelphia  at  the  close 
of  a  meeting  for  sufferings.  Ten  or  twe-Ive  persons  in  all 
attended,  and  among  the  rest  Lower,  who  is  a  "  Hicksite," 
and  one  of  the  principal  men  on  that  side.  He  was  re- 
quested to  remain  and  consult  what  was  best  to  be  done, 
and  from  his  own  statement  he  appears  to  have  taken  an 
active  part  in  the  proceedings.  The  subject  for  considera-  , 
tion  was  stated  to  be  the  unsound  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks, 
and  the  mischief  he  was  doing  among  them.  Was  not 
this  a  proper  subject  of  inquiry  ?  Were  they  not  author- 
ized, was  it  not  their  undoubted  right,  thus  to  meet  and 
take  measures  to  prevent  the  evils  likely  to  result  from  his 
course?  They  met,  not  as  enemies,  but  as  friends  of  Elias 
Hicks,  to  determine  what  was  best  to  be  done  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case. 

It  was  well  known  that  they  could  not  stop  him  by  ap- 
plying to  the  meeting  at  Jerico.  In  fact,  he  had  then  left 
home,  and  was  on  his  way  to  Philadelphia;  an  application  to 
that  meeting  would  therefore  have  been  entirely  unavailing. 
They  were  then  obliged  to  take  other  measures  to  prevent 
the  evils  which  must  arise  from  the  dissemination  of  his  anti- 
christian  doctrines  among  them.  If  there  is  any  thing  in 
the  book  of  discipline  which  prevents  the  elders  from  in-- 
9* 


90 

terfering  with  a  member  of  another  meeting,  who  is  visit- 
ing among  them,  if  there  is  any  thing  which  forbids  the 
course  that  these  gentlemen  took,  I  should  be  glad  to  see 
it.  It  has  not  yet  been  produced.  If,  when  an  individual 
is  travelling  from  home,  spreading  false  doctrines,  and 
poisoning  the  members  of  the  society  wilh  pernicious  prin- 
ciples, no  one  is  to  interfere  with  him,  but  the  meeting 
which  sent  him  out  for  the  very  purpose  of  preaching 
these  doctrines,  it  is  indeed  a  serious  and  dangerous  state 
of  things.  The  society  would  be  the  prey  of  every  ambi- 
tious innovator,  who  had  address  enough  to  insinuate  him- 
self into  the  good  graces  of  his  own  meeting.  It  appears 
from  evidence  that  at  this  meeting  some  of  the  elders  were 
deputed  to  wait  on  Mr.  Hicks,  before  he  came  to  the  city, 
to  state  to  him  the  reports  which  were  abroad  respecting 
the  nature  of  his  doctrines,  and  to  request  of  him  an  expla- 
nation. This  was  all  that  was  done  ;  the  gentlemen  ap- 
pointed, however,  did  not  obtain  an  interview  with  him,  and 
here  this  matter  ended.  Soon  after  this  Elias  Hicks  came  to 
Philadelphia,  and  the  elders  thought  it  their  duty  again  to 
endeavour  to  procure  an  interview  with  him.  Two  of  their 
number  accordingly  called  on  him,  stated  the  charges  of  un- 
sound doctrine,  which  were  alleged  against  him,  and  desired 
him  to  give  the  elders  a  select  opportunity  with  him,  agreea- 
bly to  the  usages  of  the  society.  It  seems  that  he  eluded  this 
interview,  he  would  give  them  no  opportunity  of  convers- 
ing with  him,  except  in  a  public  manner.  He  said  they  had 
no  right  to  interfere  in  the  business,  denied  their  jurisdic- 
tion, and  all  obligation  to  conform  to  any  measures  which 
"they  thought  it  necessary  to  adopt.  They  could  obtain  no 
private  conversation  with  him.  They  were  willing  to 
have  the  interview  in  th&  presence  of  such  persons  as 
might  be  proper,  but  they  could  not  consent  to  a  public 
discussion  in  the  Green  street  meeting  house.  This  was 
not  calculated  to  benefit  the  cause  of  religion,  nor  to  ad- 
vance the  cause  of  religious  truth.  They  wished  to  con- 
fer with  him  as  brethren,  as  friends;  but  they  did  not  wish 
to  do  it  in  public ;  this  was  contrary  to  the  usages  of  the 
society ;  nor  did  they  w  ish  to  do  it  entirely  in  private,  but 
with  as  much  privacy  as  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
and  the  custom  of  the  society  required. 

As  he  refused  to  grant  them  such  an  interview,  the  elders 
then  thought  it  their  duty  to  address  a  letter  to  him,  stating 
their  uneasiness  and  concern  respecting  his  doctrines  and 


91 

ministry.    He  replied  to  this,  and  they  wrote  a  second  let- 
ter in  answer  to  his,  and  here  their  proceedings  ended. 

Now,  suppose  these  gentlemen  were  mistaken,  that  the 
facts  did  not  justify  the  course  they  took,  was  there  any 
thing  in  all  this  to  justify  the  separation ;  any  thing  to 
form  a  ground  for  a  division — a  secession  from  the  socie- 
ty? There  certainly  was  nothing.  But  will  the  court  in- 
quire into  this  matter;  is  it  a  subject  of  which  they  can 
take  cognizance?  Is  the  court  going  to  explain  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  society  for  its  members,  or  to  put  its  own  con-  ■ 
struction  as  to  what  it  does,  or  does  not  require,  under 
such  circumstances  ?  Will  the  court  attempt  to  do  this, 
or  will  it  not  rather  look  at  the  proceedings  of  the  elders 
simply  as  they  affect  this  controversy  ?  If  the  Hicksite 
party  can  show  that  the  care  and  concern  of  those  elders 
tended  to  dissolve  the  bonds  of  the  society ;  that  it  rent  in 
sunder  the  ties  which  united  the  members,  this  is  one 
ground ;  if  they  say  merely,  that  it  M'as  a  ground  of  dis- 
satisfaction, and  discontent  to  their  party,  we  admit  this. 
It  was  so ;  but  then  we  trace  it  all  back  to  Elias  Hicks  and 
his  doctrines,  as  the  original  cause ;  but  for  him  and  his 
disciples,  that  dissatisfaction  would  never  have  existed, 
nor  this  schism  occurred.  The  proceedings  of  the  elders 
cannot  justify  nor  explain  this  severance  of  the  society, — 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  account  for  it.  It  must  come 
back  to  this  point,  that  the  whole  cause  of  complaint,  the 
whole  source  of  difficulty,  was  Elias  Hicks,  and  the  doc- 
trines he  preached.  These  gentlemen,  the  elders,  have 
been  much  traduced,  as  being  a  faction,  rich  men,  an  aris- 
tocracy, and  as  endeavouring  to  obtain  power.  These 
are  strange  charges  indeed  against  men  of  their  habits, 
and  of  their  religious  principles.  Their  whole  course  of 
life  goes  to  exclude  them  from  power,  to  restrain  them 
from  grasping  after  the  power  of  this  world.  Is  there  any 
ground,  in  any  thing  they  did,  on  which  to  found  such 
charges,  or  to  impute  to  them  improper  motives?  No,  the 
course  they  took  was  in  obedience  to  their  religious  duty, 
as  guardians  of  the  society,  as  overseers  of  the  church, 
on  whom  a  serious  and  solemn  responsibility  was  de- 
volved by  the  discipline.  They  are  charged  with  being 
conspirators,  but  for  what  did  they  conspire  ?  To  promote 
the  cause  of  truth  and  of  the  Christian  religion.  I  wish 
there  were  more  conspirators  of  the  same  description. 
Their  motive  was  not  only  justifiable,  but  laudable,  every 


92 

christian  man  will  sanction  and  approve  it,  will  say  they 
were  fully  justified  in  taking  the  course  they  did.  If  any 
facts  had  been  laid  before  this  court,  to  show  that  the 
conduct  of  the  elders  proceeded  from  mere  prejudice 
against  Mr.  Hicks,  or  from  sinister  or  maUcious  motives, 
and  not  from  a  sense  of  religious  obligation,  there  might 
be  some  colour  of  pretence  for  this  complaint.  But  when 
men  of  their  character  and  religious  standing,  acting  as 
they  did  from  conscientious  motives,  are  thus  groundless- 
ly  traduced  by  a  party  in  the  society,  it  is  a  most  unjusti- 
fiable and  wanton  course. 

We  then  come  to  the  Extracts  which  were  prepared  by 
the  meeting  for  sufferings,  in  the  year  1822,  about  which 
"we  have  heard  so  much,  and  which  have  been  declaimed 
against  as  an  attempt  to  impose  a  creed  upon  the  society 
contrary  to  its  principles.  This  has  been  held  here  to  be 
of  so  much  importance,  that  the  gentleman  who  first  ad- 
dressed the  court  on  the  opposite  side,  made  it  the  ground 
of  separation,  the  primary  ground,  and  that  all  subsequent 
difficulties  were  to  be  traced  to  this  act.  It  was  necessary 
to  put  his  finger  upon  some  one  circumstance,  as  the 
ground  of  separation,  and  he  has  chosen  this  as  the 
strongest.  Now  I  think  it  will  not  require  a  William 
Penn  to  shake  this  sandy  foundation :  the  statement  of  a 
single  fact  will  sweep  it  away.  These  extracts  were  pre- 
pared in  1822,  in  1823  the  subject  came  before  the  yearly 
meeting,  and  the  publication  of  them  was  suspended,  they 
were  laid  by,  and  w^e  hear  no  more  of  them  afterwards. 
If  this  then  was  the  ground  of  division,  why  did  not  the 
separation  take  place  in  1823,  when  they  were  before  the 
yearly  meeting  ?  They  complain  bitterly  of  this  meeting 
for  sufferings,  as  being  an  aristocracy,  requiring  the  strong 
arm  of  the  law  to  put  it  down.  Why  did  they  not  then 
take  measures  to  put  it  down,  at  that  meeting?  At  that 
time  the  excitement  had  not  gone  to  the  length  which  it 
afterwards  did,  they  could  harmonize  and  act  in  unison, 
and  if  this  meeting  for  sufferings  had  been  the  dangerous 
body  which  they  would  now  make  us  believe,  then  was 
the  time  to  put  it  down  and  correct  the  evil.  But  no  such 
attempt  is  made  or  thought  of.  When  the  extracts  came 
before  the  yearly  meeting,  they  were  opposed ;  those  in 
favour  of  publishing  them  yielded  their  opinion  and  they 
were  laid  by.  Can  any  man  believe  that  this  circumstance, 
(even  giving  it  all  the  characteristics  which  the  imagina- 


93 

tion  of  the  party  has  clothed  it  with,)  occurring  in  the 
year  1823,  was  the  cause  of  the  separation  which  took 
place  in  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827.  If  it  was  the  cause, 
why  was  it  not  the  immediate  cause.  The  act  complained 
of  was  done  in  1823,  why  did  they  not  then  separate? 
But  they  did  not  separate  t}ie?i,  they  met  again  the  year 
after,  and  the  year  after  that,  and  transacted  their  busi- 
ness in  the  ordinary  manner,  until  the  year  1827,  and  yet 
that  act  is  now  set  up  as  a  circumstance  which  dissolved 
the  bonds  of  union  that  existed  in  the  yearly  meeting.-  If 
this  was  the  fact,  then  from  the  year  1823  to  1827  the 
society  was  without  a  yearly  meeting  in  Philadelphia. 
How  was  it  then  that  Friends  met  during  each  of  the  in- 
tervening years,  and  transacted  their  business.  They 
either  were  a  yearly  meeting,  or  they  were  no  yearly 
meeting.  If  the  act  complained  of,  in  1823,  burst  the 
bonds  of  the  society,  and  dissolved  the  ties  which  held  it 
together,  it  terminated  the  existence  of  the  yearly  meet- 
ing ;  but  if  the  society  could  and  did  meet  as  a  yearly 
meeting  for  years  after,  and  regularly  transact  its  busi- 
ness, then  that  act  did  not  dissolve  the  bonds  of  the  soci- 
ety, nor  put  an  end  to  the  existence  of  the  yearly  meet- 
ing in  1827. 

My  object,  if  the  court  please,  is  to  show  that  it  was  a 
separation  which  took  place  in  1827,  not  a  dissolution  of 
the  yearly  meeting.  I  might  have  answered  all  the 
grounds  relied  on  by  the  other  side,  by  saying.  Gentlemen, 
they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject,  they  cannot  af- 
fect the  existence  of  the  yearly  meeting,  and  unless  they 
put  an  end  to  the  yearly  meeting  of  4th  month  1827,  the 
"  Hicksite"  meeting  must  be  a  new  one.  Their  witnesses 
speak  of  it,  as  a  separation,  as  the  formation  of  a  new 
yearly  meeting,  of  a  new  society ;  they  speak  of  the  mea- 
sures as  measures  designed  to  produce  a  separation.  Their 
publications  say  that  the  time  for  withdrawing  has  fully- 
come  ;  not  that  the  yearly  meeting  is  dissolved.  If  then  it 
was  a  separation,  and  it  cannot  be  any  thing  else,  who  are 
the  separatists  ?  It  is  impossible  to  impute  that  character 
to  us ;  no  one  pretends  that  we  have  separated  from  the 
society  of  Friends.  They  must  therefore  be  the  separat- 
ists; they  cannot  avoid  the  imputation,  neither  can  they 
take  the  character  of  those  they  have  separated  from;  they 
cannot  be  Friends,  they  have  no  claim  to  the  title. 

Another  ground  of  complaint  is,  that  the  meeting  for 


94 

sufferings,  the  great  object  of  their  hostility,  wished  to  ren- 
der itself  a  permanent  body;  that  they  attempted  to  inter- 
fere with  the  quarters  in  the  appointment  of  their  repre- 
sentatives in  that  meeting.  That  when  one  of  the  quarters 
attempted  to  change  its  representatives,  the  meeting  for 
sufferings  interfered  and  insisted  that  the  existing  repre- 
sentatives must  remain  in  office  until  removed  by  deatii,  or 
in  some  other  mode  prescribed  by  the  discipline.  Such  is 
their  complaint.  Now  I  would  ask  the  court,  whether  it 
will  go  into  the  inquiry,  whether  the  meeting  for  sufferings 
be  a  permanent  or  temporary  body?  Will  it  undertake  to 
give  its  own  construction  to  the  discipline  of  the  society, 
and  tell  the  members  whether  their  meeting  for  sufferings 
is  permanent  or  not?  What  bearing  can  this  have  on  the 
cause  now  pending  before  the  court?  Supposing  the  meet- 
ing for  sufferings  to  have  been  mistaken  in  their  views  of 
this  subject,  does  that  change  any  one  fact  bearing  on  the 
case,  now  before  the  court?  I  think  not.  The  meeting  for 
sufferings  appointed  a  committee  to  go  down  to  the  quar- 
ter, and  endeavour  to  terminate  the  business  amicably. 
The  committee  accordingly  went  down,  and  stated  the 
views  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings  in  relation  to  the  nnat- 
ter;  and  what  was  the  consequence?  The  quarterly  meet- 
ing adhered  to  its  course,  and  there  the  business  ended. 
When  the  subject  came  before  the  yearly  meeting,  which 
was  the  proper  body  to  settle  the  discipline  in  the  case,  it 
was  dismissed  at  the  suggestion  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party 
themselves,  and  with  their  full  approbation.  Is  there  any 
thing  then  in  this  circumstance  which  tends  to  show  that 
the  yearly  meeting  of  1827  was  dissolved,  that  it  had  no 
existence,  or  that  a  separation  did  not  take  place  between 
Friends  and  the  "Hicksites?"  The  gentleman  considers 
the  conduct  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings  as  of  the  most 
alarming  character,  that  it  was  an  innovation  and  intended 
to  concentrate  all  power  in  the  hands  of  this  body,  and  to 
give  them  a  control  over  the  whole  society.  I  am  really 
at  a  loss  to  perceive  where  the  gentleman  finds  any  ground 
for  these  surmises.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  the 
change  made  by  the  Southern  quarter  in  its  representatives, 
was  entirely  a  new  attempt,  that  there  is  no  precedent  for 
it,  since  the  establishment  of  the  discipline,  that  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  general  opinion  of  the  society  as  regards  the 
powers  of  the  quarterly  meetings,  the  meeting  for  sufferings 
therefore  hesitated  to  recognize  it ;  they  were  cautious  of 


95 

sanctioning  a  measure  not  recognized  by  the  discipline  and 
usages  of  the  society,  and  therefore  appointed  a  committee 
to  confer  with  the  quarter ;  the  quarter  refused  to  confer, 
and  there  the  matter  terminated.  What  is  there  in  this 
which  furnishes  ground  for  the  gentleman's  apprehensions'? 
I  can  see  nothing.  But  suppose  they  are  all  well  founded. 
What  right  have  they  to  bring  it  here  as  a  subject  of  com- 
plaint; the  yearly  meeting  was  the  proper  place  to  correct 
the  evil,  if  any  existed,  and  when  it  came  there,  they  vo- 
luntarily dismissed  it.  Your  honours  will  find  by  examin- 
ing the  testimony,  that  all  the  clamour  which  has  been  raised 
on  this  subject,  grew  out  of  the  fact,  that  it  was  connected 
with  the  opposition  to  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks.  Two 
of  the  elders  of  Philadelphia,  had  been  chosen  by  the  South- 
ern quarter,  to  represent  it  in  the  meeting  for  sufferings, 
and  because  they  ventured  to  interfere  respecting  the  doc- 
trines preached  by  Hicks,  the  Southern  quarter  undertook 
to  remove  them  from  their  station.  That  quarterly  meet- 
ing is  one  of  the  strong  holds  of  Hicksism,  the  party  have 
the  majority  there.  When  therefore  these  elders  attempted 
to  interfere  with  E.  H.  the  quarter  says,  these  men  are  no 
longer  in  union  with  us ;  we  will  therefore  displace  them. 
The  quarterly  meeting  contended  that  it  had  a  right  so  to 
remove  them,  while  the  meeting  for  sufferings  thought  that 
by  the  discipline  it  had  no  such  right.  Will  the  court  un- 
dertake to  settle  the  question  between  them  ? 

These  then  are  all  the  acts  complained  of  by  the  "  Hicks- 
ite"  party  previous  to  the  year  1827,  and  I  think  it  is  evi- 
dent there  is  no  circumstance  occurring  before  the  session 
of  the  yearly  meeting  which  can  possibly  be  considered  as 
putting  an  end  to  its  existence.  What  then  is  the  charac- 
ter of  the  new  yearly  meeting?  Here  are  two  yearly 
meetings,  one  held  in  the  Arch  street  meeting  house,  the 
other  in  Green  street.  The  one  in  Arch  street  has  existed 
for  a  century  and  a  half.  The  other  has  grown  up  out  of 
this  controversy,  and  dates  its  commencement  in  tenth 
month,  1827.  In  this  separation  which  is  to  be  considered 
as  the  original  yearly  meeting?  This  is  an  important  in- 
quiry, one  on  which  the  whole  cause  may  turn,  and  I  in- 
sist that  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  but  that  the  meeting  m 
Arch  street,  is  the  true  yearly  meeting,  the  one  which  must 
be  recognised  as  such  by  this  court,  the  one  that  has  been 
acknowledged  by  other  yearly  meetings  of  Friends,  in  fact 
hy  the  whole  society  except  those  persons  who  have  united 


96 

in  the  schism  and  separation  which  has  taken  place.  If 
nothing  was  done  previous  to  that  yearly  meeting,  which 
extinguished  it,  nor  any  thing  done  during  its  session  which 
had  that  effect,  it  must  still  remain  to  be  the  original  yearly 
meeting.  What  then  is  the  etiect  of  this  separation  as  it 
respects  the  property  now  in  question?  This  will  lead  me 
to  consider  the  division  which  has  taken  place  in  the  sub- 
ordinate branches  of  the  yearly  meeting,  and  to  trace  it 
down  to  the  preparative  meeting  in  Chesterfield.  Our 
ground  on  this  point  is,  that  a  separation  having  taken  place 
in  the  supreme  head,  there  being  two  meetings  held  by  dis- 
tinct bodies  of  people,  assuming  different  powers  and  con- 
trol, those  in  the  subordinate  meetings  who  have  attached 
themselves  to  the  new  yearly  meeting  must  be  considered 
as  a  part  of  it,  and  those  who  continue  to  adhere  to  the  old 
yearly  meeting,  must  be  viewed  as  a  part  of  the  society 
to  which  they  originally  belonged. 

I  shall  first  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  a  difficulty 
•which  occurred  in  the  Burlington  quarter.  After  the  call 
issued  by  the  "Hicksites"  to  those  who  were  disposed  to 
separate  and  aid  in  the  formation  of  a  new  society,  in 
tenth  month,  1827,  this  quarterly  meeting  took  place.  Per- 
mit me  to  remark  here,  that  the  Burlington  quarterly  meet- 
ing was  not  represented  in  the  new  yearly  meeting  of 
tenth  month,  1827.  They  had  no  representative  there, 
and  after  its  formation  they  had  the  option  either  to  join 
with  it,  or  to  remain  with  the  other,  to  which  they  had 
always  belonged.  I  stated  yesterday  that  when  the  new 
yearly  meeting  was  formed,  only  five  out  of  eleven  quar- 
ters were  represented  in  it,  the  majority  therefore  was  not 
represented.  If  they  have  increased  so  as  to  form  a  ma- 
jority now,  this  does  not  change  the  state  of  facts  then. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  they  had  a  majority  then,  or 
that  this  yearly  meeting  was  set  up  by  a  majority,  but  so 
far  as  there  is  any  evidence,  it  is  directly  against  them. 

John  Gummere,  in  his  evidence,  gives  a  full  and  clear 
account  of  what  took  place  in  the  quarterly  meeting  of 
Burlington.  In  answer  to  the  question,  "  Have  any  diffi- 
culties and  disturbances  occurred  during  the  period  within 
which  you  have  been  clerk  of  Burlington  quarterly  meet- 
ing, either  in  that  meeting  or  in  any  of  its  subordinate 
branches,  which  have  resulted  in  the  secession  of  a  part  of 
its  members  from  the  society  of  Friends'?"  the  witness 
says, "  I  believe  there  have  instances  of  disorder  occurred 


in  a  number  of  the  subordinate  meetings,  but  I  can  only 
speak  from  personal  knowledge  in  reference  to  two.     In 
Burlington  quarterly   meeting,  which   was   held   at   the 
usual  time  in  eleventh  month,  1827,  a  number  of  indivi- 
duals attended,  who,  it  was  stated,  had  either  been  dis- 
owned, or  were  under  dealing  in  the  respective  month- 
ly meetings   of  which   they   had   been   or   were   mem- 
bers.    It  being  contrary  to  the  order  of  our  society  for 
business  to  proceed  when  individuals  so  circumstanced, 
are  known  to  be  present,  these  were  divers  times  re- 
quested to  withdraw;  they,  however,  refusing  to  do  so, 
and  being  supported  in  their  intention  of  staying,  by  a 
number  of  the  members  of  the  quarterly  meeting,   the 
meeting  was  under  the  necessity,  in  order  that  its  business 
might  be  conducted  consistently  with  the  order  of  the  so- 
ciety, to  make  an  adjournment.     It  accordingly  adjourn- 
ed to  the  following  sixth  day  (of  the  week)  at  Burlington, 
where  it  was  duly  and  properly  held.     It  was  adjourned 
by  regular  minute.     In  a  monthly  meeting  held  at  Bur- 
lington, the  latter  part  of  the  year  1827,  or  beginning  of 
1828,  one  or  more  individuals  were  present,  circumstanced 
as  above  mentioned';  these  decUning  to  withdraw  although 
repeatedly  and  affectionately  asked  to  do  so,  the  meeting 
was  under  the  necessity  of  adjourning.    It  adjourned  to  the 
following  day,  when  it  was  held  in  order  and  quietness. 
These  are  the  only  two  instances  of  disorder  that  I  know 
of,  from  being  present  at  the  time."     Vfil.  1,  Ev.  p.  316. 
And  again  in  p.  317,  of  the  same  volume,  m  answer  to  the 
question,  whether  those  members  who  thus  advocated  and 
supported  the  individuals  spoken  of  (as  refusing  to  with- 
draw) have  or  have  not  since  that  time  separated  them- 
selves from  the  society  of  Friends,  and  gone  off  in  the  se- 
cession ;  the  witness  says,  "  I  believe  they  have  generally 
or  all  done  so."     In  page  321,  same  volume,  the  witness 
says,  "  By  common  repute  it  (a  meeting  at  Chesterfield, 
which  they  call  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington)  ac- 
knowledges as  its  immediate  superior,  the  meeting  held  at 
Green  and  Cherry  streets,  Philadelphia,  assuming  the  style 
of  the  Yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadelphia,  which 
meetings  are  held  on  the  second  day  of  fourth  month  an- 
nually." 

From  this  evidence,  as  well  as  that  of  several  other 
witnesses,  the  manner  in  which  the  separation  took  place 
in  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington  appears.     At  the 
10 


98 

time  it  was  held,  the  new  yearly  meeting  of  the  "  Hicks- 
ites"  had  been  established,  and  it  was  now  the  moment 
of  separation  in  the  different  branches ;  each  parly  making, 
choice  of  the  head  to  which  they  would  be  attached. 
When  the  quarterly  meeting  assembled,  it  w-as  found  that 
a  number  of  persons  were  there  who  had  been  disowned, 
or  were  under  dealing  by  the  society,  and  who  conse- 
quently had  no  right  to  be  present.     They  were  affection- 
ately and  repeatedly  requested  to  withdraw.     This  they 
refused  to  do,  although  it  is  an  express  rule  of  the  soci- 
ety, never  to  transact  business  in  the  presence  of  persons 
thus  circumstanced.     The  question  then  arose,  what  was 
to  be  done.     These  individuals  were  encouraged  by  the 
"  Hicksite"  party  to  remain.     This  at  once  produced  a 
division ;    the  parties  could  not  act   together ;  and  the 
"  Orthodox"  meeting  concluded   to  adjourn  to   another 
place;  they  did  so,  and  with  their  clerk  left  the  house. 
Now  I  perfectly  agree  with  the  opposite  counsel  that  the 
existence  of  a  meeting  cannot  depend  on  the  place  where 
they  assemble,  or  whether  the  clerk  goes  with  them  or 
stays  behind.     I  admit  that  this  is  immaterial.    It  depends 
upon  the  motive  or  object  of  the  withdrawal.     If  these  gen- 
.  tlemen  at  the  Burlington  quarter  could  not  transact  their 
business  agreeably  to  the  order  of  the  society,  where  they 
were,  they  certainly  had  a  right  to  adjourn  to  another 
place.  The  court  will  perceive  how  differently  they  acted 
from  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  yearly  meeting.     They 
make  no  disturbance,  but  quietly  withdraw  for  the  pur- 
pose of  transacting  their  business  in  a  regular  manner; 
not  to  form  a  new  society  or  a  new  meeting,  but  to  hold 
the   quarterly   meeting  of    Burlington    where  they  can 
transact  business  according  to  the  discipline  and  princi- 
ples of  the  society.     Again,  the  court  will  perceive  that 
this  separation  took  place  in  consequence  of  that  which 
had  before  occurred  in  the  head  of  that  meeting,  the  year- 
ly meeting.   One  of  the  witnesses  states,  that  a  committee 
of  the  new  yearly  meeting  attended  at  the  quarter,  and 
when  the  meeting  was  adjourned,  remained  behind  with 
their  party.     The  "  Hicksite"  party  make  no  complaint  of 
any  thing  done  by  the  "  Orthodox"  in  Burlington  quarter  ; 
they  complain  of  no  aristocracy,  no  oppression  there ; 
nothing  but  their  withdrawing  from  the  meeting  house, 
and  holding  the  quarterly  meeting  at  another  time  and 
place.  This,  we  insist,  was  in  conformity  with  the  usages 


99 

of  the  society,  as  well  as  its  discipline.  Tt  is  said,  on  the 
other  side,  that  we  ought  to  have  remained,  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  custona  to  leave  the  meeting  until  all  the  business 
was  done.  But,  if  it  please  the  court,  the  meeting  went 
along  with  them.  Suppose  the  "  Orthodox"  party  had  re- 
mained ;  the  argument  then  would  have  been,  that  by  re- 
maining they  sanctioned  what  took  place,  and  participated 
in  what  was  done.  The  proposition  was  distinctly  made 
in  the  quarterly  meeting,  that  as  they  could  not  with  pro- 
priety transact  business  among  those  who  were  present, 
they  had  better  adjourn  to  another  place  where  they  could 
proceed  in  that  harmony  and  order  which  ought  always 
to  prevail  in  their  meetings.  They  had  then  the  power  of 
deciding  whether  to  go  or  to  stay,  and  having  decided  to 
go,  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  Farther :  I  hold 
that  if  they  had  had  no  opportunity  of  adjourning ;  if 
noise  and  clamour  had  prevented  it ;  if  the  clerk  had  re- 
fused to  accompany  them ;  still  if  they  had  adjourned 
even  under  these  circumstances,  to  transact  their  business 
in  the  order  of  society,  they  would  have  had  a  right  to  do 
so,  and  would  have  lost  none  of  their  rights,  as  the  quar- 
terly meeting  of  Burlington.  It  further  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses,  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in 
this  quarterly  meeting,  have  attached  themselves  to  the 
Green  street  yearly  meeting  as  their  head,  and  their  sepa- 
ration must  therefore  be  taken  to  be  of  the  same  charac- 
ter with  that  which  took  place  in  the  yearly  meeting  of 
1827.  The  "  Orthodox"  remain  connected  with,  and  sub- 
ordinate to  the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting,  to  which  Bur- 
lington quarterly  meeting  originally  belonged.  This  is 
the  situation  of  the  parties  in  the  quarterly  meeting. 

We  come  then  to  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting; 
and  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  testimony 
of  Samuel  Emlen,  for  a  detail  of  the  circumstances  which 
took  place  at  this  meeting.  I  do  not  mean  to  go  into  all  the 
evidence  on  this  head  ;  it  is  abundant,  and  mainly  of  the 
same  character ;  but  from  the  testimony  of  a  single  wit- 
ness we  shall  obtain  all  the  important  facts  necessary  for 
a  clear  understanding  of  what  then  occurred.  The  wit- 
ness says,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  324,  "Difficulties  and  disturbances 
have  arisen  within  the  monthly  and  preparative  meetings 
of  Chesterfield,  which  have  resulted  in  a  secession  or  se- 
paration of  a  number  of  persons  there  from  the  society  of 
Friends.    I  was  present  at  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting 


100 

in  ninth  month,  1827.  The  business  on  minute  was  gone 
through  without  colUsion,  so  far  as  I  have  any  remem- 
brance. But  when,  as  I  hoped,  the  meeting  was  about 
closing  quietly,  a  person,  a  member  of  that  meeting,  made 
a  request  for  a  certificate  of  removal  for  his  son  to  the 
monthly  meeting  of  Green  street.  As  far  as  I  recollect,  it 
was  stated  that  that  monthly  meeting  had  been  dissolved, 
or  laid  dow^n,  some  time  before,  by  Philadelphia  quarterly 
meeting,  of  which  it  had  been  a  branch,  and  the  members 
thereof  attached  to  the  monthly  meeting  held  for  the  North- 
ern District,  and  this  fact  I  suppose  must  have  been  known 
by  common  repute  to  most  or  all  present.  I  think  it  was 
proposed,  that  the  certificate  should  be  addressed  to  the 
monthly  meeting  for  the  Northern  District ;  but  some  per- 
sons present  assuming  to  question  the  fact,  WilHam  New- 
bold  gave  information  that  he  was  present  at  the  quarter- 
ly meeting  of  Philadelphia  in  the  preceding  fifth  month, 
when  the  monthly  meeting  of  Green  street  was  dissolved, 
or  laid  down,  by  that  quarterly  meeting.  Some  person 
or  persons  then  present,  said,  that  no  official  notice  had 
been  received  of  the  laying  down  of  that  meeting,  and 
still  urged  the  appoitment  of  a  committee  to  prepare  the 
certificate  to  be  directed  as  first  requested.  This  continued 
to  be  objected  to,  and  it  was  not  done.  The  meeting  was 
adjourned  in  the  usual  manner,  but  a  number  of  persons 
staid  behind  in  the  house,  and  from  what  afterwards  ap- 
peared, I  suppose  undertook  to  act  as  a  monthly  meeting. 
I  was  not  present  at  the  usual  time  of  holding  that  meeting 
the  succeeding  month,  but  understood,  either  the  evening  of 
that  day,  or  the  next  morning,  that  the  business  of  the  meet- 
ing was  not  transacted,  owing  to  interruption,  and  therefore 
the  meeting  was  adjourned  to  next  day.  I  went  to  the  ad- 
journed meeting,  which  was  held  quietly  and  without  op- 
position, although  a  few  of  those  who  had  taken  part  in 
the  opposition  to  the  order  of  society  were  present.  I 
was  at  that  monthly  meeting  in  eleventh  month,  1827. 
The  regular  clerk  took  his  seat  without  opposition,  al- 
though those  who  had  opposed  the  order  and  discipline  in 
that  meeting  were  generally  present.  I  think  it  was  in 
the  course  of  reading  the  minutes  of  the  preceding  month, 
that  a  person  w^ho  had  taken  part  in  the  disorderly  pro- 
ceedings previously,  on  a  minute  being  read  naming  Sa- 
muel Bunting  as  agent  of  the  monthly  meeting  at  Chester- 
field  to  the  Asylum  in  his  stead,  (he  having  been  released 


101 

at  his  own  request,  as  it  appeared)  rose  and  said,  that, 
meaning  the  releasement,  was  not  all  he  had  requested 
and  desired,  or  to  that  effect,  and  wished  to  know  whether 
a  certain  bond  which  he,  as  agent  for  Chesterfield  month- 
ly meeting,  had  given  for  securing  payment  of  the  ex- 
penses of  a  person  placed  in  the  Asylum  by  that  monthly 
meeting,  had  been  taken  up  and  cancelled;  thus  appearing 
to  acknowledge  the  meeting  then  sitting,  with  David  Clark 
as  its  clerk,  to  be  the  real  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield. 
When  this  monthly  meeting  was  closed,  a  number  of  per- 
sons disposed  to  separate,  or  who  had  theretofore  acted 
disorderly,  remained  together.  I  should  have  observed 
before,  that  the  usual  reports  from  the  preparative  meet- 
ings of  Trenton,  Stony  Brook,  and  East  Branch,  were 
handed  in  to  the  clerk,  but  those  which  ought  to  have 
come  from  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  and  Borden- 
town,  were  not  produced.  The  person  who  acted  as  clerk 
at  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  on  their  being  asked 
for,  said,  he  did  not  consider  this,  meaning  the  present 
meeting,  as  the  proper  monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield. 
I  think  I  was  also  at  that  meeting  in  the  next  month  fol- 
lowing, being  twelfth  month,  1827,  and  the  regular  clerk 
took  his  seat  as  before,  as  far  as  I  recollect.  I  do  not 
now  recollect  any  thing  very  particular  as  occurring  at 
that  meeting.  I  believe  the  business  went  on  quietly, 
though  I  will  not  be  very  certain.  I  should  have  stated, 
before  alluding  to  the  meeting  of  twelfth  month,  that  the 
members  of  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  convened  at  the 
usual  time,  in  eleventh  month,  for  the  purpose  of  holding 
the  quarterly  meeting ;  but  a  number  of  persons  being 
present,  coming  into  the  meeting,  who  were  known  to  be 
under  appointment  from  the  assembly  then  recently  held 
at  Green  street,  and  also  some  others  of  the  same  class, 
some  of  whom  were  known  to  be  under  dealings  or  dis- 
owned by  the  respective  monthly  meetings  of  which  they 
were  or  had  been  members,  and  they  refusing  to  with- 
draw, when  requested  so  to  do,  the  meeting,  of  both  men 
and  women,  was  adjourned  to  Burlington,  to  the  following 
sixth  day,  which  I  think  was  the^Oth  of  the  month,  when 
and  where  the  quarterly  meeting  was  quietly  held,  and 
among  other  business  then  transacted,  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  visit  the  subordinate  meetings." 

From  the  testimony  of  this  and  other  witnesses,  it  also 
appears  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  in  the  Chesterfield 
10* 


102 

monthly  meeting,  who  are  spoken  of  as  remaining  behind 
in  9th  and  11th  months,  after  the  meeting  had  adjourned, 
organized  themselves  as  a  monthly  meeting  of  the  new 
society,  and  one  of  their  first  acts,  as  appears  by  their 
own  minute  under  date  of  9th  month  1827,  was  to  ap- 
point representatives  to  attend  their  "  contemplated  yearly 
meeling,^^  to  be  held  in  the  month  following. 

The  separation  in  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  ap- 
pears to  have  taken  place,  pretty  much  as  the  other  had. 
The  "  Hicksite"  party  complain  of  the  "  Orthodox,"  that 
when  a  certificate  was  applied  for,  to  be  directed  to  the 
Green  street  meeting  in  Philadelphia,  the  clerk  did  not 
make  a  minute,  because  it  was  there  represented  that  that 
monthly  meeting  had  been  laid  down  by  its  quarterly 
meeting.  This  has  been  represented  as  a  most  outrage- 
ous proceeding,  and  David  Clark  the  clerk  of  the  meeting, 
has  been  denounced  as  a  pope  in  consequence  of  it.  David 
Clark  being  the  clerk  of  the  Chesterfield  meeting,  he  w^as 
in  point  of  fact,  the  presiding  officer,  for  they  have  no 
presiding  oflicer  unless  it  be  the  clerk.  It  was  well  known 
to  the  persons  present,  that  the  Green  street  meeting  was 
laid  down,  and  that  this  proposition  for  preparing  the  cer- 
tificate was  brought  forward  for  the  purpose  of  producing 
a  separation  in  the  meeting.  The  clerk  therefore  could  not, 
consistently  with  the  discipline  and  order  of  the  society, 
make  such  a  minute  as  the  "  Hicksite"  party  wished,  be- 
cause no  such  monthly  meeting  as  Green  street  existed  as 
a  part  of  the  society  of  Friends.  He  did  not  enter  the 
minute,  and  he  could  not  have  done  it,  without  a  violation 
of  his  duty  and  of  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  society. 
An  immediate  and  total  separation  does  not  appear  to 
have  followed,  for  though  the  "  Hicksite"  party  organized 
themselves  as  a  meeting  of  the  new  society,  with  Jediah 
Middleton  as  their  clerk,  yet  they  continued  to  meet  with 
Friends  until  the  12th  month  following,  when  they  became 
entirely  distinct.  The  meeting  of  the  '*  Hicksite"  party, 
united  itself  to  their  yearly  meeting,  held  in  Green  and 
Cherry  streets,  and  became  a  constituent  member  of  it ; 
while  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  of  Friends  re- 
mained a  branch  of  the  Burlington  quarter  to  which  it  al- 
ways belonged,  and  which  is  one  of  the  quarters  com- 
posing the  Arch  street  yearly  meeting.  The  question 
now  is,  which  is  the  original  meeting?  This  cannot  de- 
pend on  the  fact  which  party  left  the  house.    They  say 


103 

that  we  are  the  seceders  because  we  withdrew,  that  be- 
cause we  left  the  house,  we  are  separatists.  This  is  a 
very  convenient  argument  for  them ;  they  work  it  both 
•ways.  In  the  yearly  meeting  when  they  withdrew,  it  is 
a  matter  of  no  consequence,  it  does  not  make  them  sepa- 
ratists, but  when  in  the  monthly  meeting  we  are  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  house  in  order  to  hold  our  meeting  in 
quietness  and  order,  then  it  becomes  all-important,  and  the 
fact  of  our  withdrawing  makes  m^  separatists  and  seceders. 
The  fact  however  is,  that  the  separation  took  place  in  9th 
month,  before  Friends  were  obliged  to  leave  the  house, 
which  was  not  until  the  12th  month  following.  In  the 
10th  month  1827,  the  "  Hicksite"  party  staid  behind  after 
the  monthly  meeting  had  been  regularly  closed,  organized 
themselves  as  a  meeting  of  the  new  society,  and  sent  re- 
presentatives to  "their  contemplated  yearly  meeting.''^*  The 
truth  is,  that  the  question  which  is  the  original  meeting, 
does  not  depend  on  the  withdrawal,  the  place  of  meeting, 
or  on  the  adjournment,  nor  on  the  clerk's  going  with  those 
who  withdraw,  or  staying  with  those  who  remain;  these 
are  not  material :  but  it  depends  upon  the  motive  and  ob- 
ject of  the  withdrawal.  If  they  withdraw,  or  remain  be- 
hind to  form  a  new  meeting,  this  is  what  gives  an  import- 
ant character  to  the  act;  but  if  they  withdraw  merely  to 
transact  business  connected  with  the  superior  meetings  to 
which  they  originally  belonged,  this  is  not  a  withdrawing 
that  can  affect  their  rights.  It  seems  that  the  "  Hicksite" 
party  in  the  monthly  meeting  attempted  to  remove  Mr. 
Clark,  and  to  appoint  a  new  officer,  because  he  did. not 
make  a  minute  of  the  certificate  which  had  been  apphed 
for  to  Green  street.  This  attempt  was  disorderly,  and 
contrary  both  to  discipline  and  usage.  Mr.  Clark  had 
been  regularly  appointed  for  a  year,  he  acted  in  the  con- 
scientious discharge  of  his  duty,  according  to  the  disci- 
pline, and  they  had  no  right  to  remove  him  in  this  way. 
At  the  meeting  in  ninth  month,  after  the  business  of  the 
monthly  meeting  had  been  regularly  closed,  the  "  Hicks- 
ite" party  got  together  and  appointed  a  clerk ;  and  when 
they  met  in  tenth  month,  this  new  clerk  took  his  seat  at 
the  table,  nearly  one  hour  before  the  time  of  gathering, 
and  continued  there,  and  acted  in  defiance  of  the  regular 

*  See  minute  of  monthly  meetingof  the  "Hicksites"  held  10th  month 
1827.    Exhibit,  L.  2. 


104 

clerk  of  the  monthly  meeting.  The"  whole  of  these  pro- 
ceedings are  decidedly  of  a  party  character,  and  evince 
clearly  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  were  acting  as  a  new 
and  distinct  society. 

This  leads  us  in  the  next  place  to  the  proceedings  which 
took  place  in  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield  ;  and 
I  refer  the  court  to  the  evidence  of  Samuel  Craft  for  a 
full  and  fair  narrative  of  all  the  important  facts  which 
occurred  there.  The  witness  says  "  in  the  twelfth  month, 
1827,  a  committee  appointed  at  Burlington  quarterly  meet- 
ing, and  also  a  committee  appointed  in  Chesterfield 
monthly  meeting  to  visit  and  assist  their  subordinate 
meetings,  both  attended  the  preparative  meeting  held  at 
Bordentown  at  the  usual  time,  where  there  were  a  con- 
siderable number  of  persons  who  were  members  of  Ches- 
terfield preparative  meeting  present,  comprising  some  of 
the  same  characters  that  acted  in  the  disorderly  proceed- 
ings of  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  of  the  tenth 
month ;  and  after  the  meeting  had  set  a  considerable 
length  of  time,  but  before  any  friend  on  the  upper  seat  in 
the  meeting  had  shaken  hands,  which  is  our  usual  mode 
of  closing  our  meetings  for  worship,  or  before  any  friend 
had  vocally  stated  that  it  was  the  usual  time  to  transact 
the  concerns  of  the  preparative  meeting,  most  of  the 
members  rose  hastily  from  their  seats,  and  went  up  stairs 
where  the  business  of  the  preparative  meeting  is  usually 
transacted.  Those  who  were  there  in  attendance  as  com- 
mittees, notwithstanding  the  unprecedented  manner  in 
which  the  members  of  the  meeting  had  retired,  believed 
it  best  to  follow  them.  When  the  committees  got  up  stairs, 
the  clerk  had  opened  or  was  about  to  open  the  prepara- 
tive meeting.  It  was  then  stated  to  the  meeting  that  there 
were  two  committees  in  attendance,  viz.  one  from  the 
quarterly  and  the  other  from  the  monthly  meeting,  which 
had  established  that  preparative  meeting,  and  if  the  clerk 
was  acting  as  clerk  of  that  preparative  meeting  held  in 
subordination  to  those  meetings  mentioned,  we  had  min- 
utes of  our  appointment  which  we  wished  to  present  to 
the  meeting.  They  did  not  seem  disposed  to  give  us  any 
information  respecting  the  character  in  which  they  were 
acting,  and  urged  the  clerk  to  proceed  with  the  busir/ess, 
which  they  shortly  went  through  and  closed  the  meeting. 
But  before  the  meeting  was  closed,  one  or  more  of  the 


105 

committee  in  attendance  remonstrated  against  these  dis* 
orderly  proceedings. 

"  On  the  following  day,  these  same  committees,  or 
most  of  thenv  who  were  then  present,  attended  Chester- 
field preparative  meeting,  and  after  James  Brown,  who 
was  then  at  the  table,  had  opened  the  meeting,  and  was 
about  to  proceed  with  the  business,  one  of  the  committee 
present,  that  was  under  appointment  from  both  quarterly 
and  monthly  meetings,  stated  to  the  meeting  that  there 
were  then  present  committees  from  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting,  and  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  appointed  to 
visit  the  subordinate  meetings  thereof,  and  that  if  the  per- 
son then  at  the  table,  was  acting  as  clerk  of  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting,  held  in  subordination  to  the  quarterly 
and  monthly  meetings  just  mentioned,  they  [the  com- 
mittee] had  minutes  of  their  appointment  in  these  meet- 
ings respectively,  which  the  individual  was  ready  to  pre- 
sent, if  the  person  [clerk]  was  so  acting.  The  meeting, 
or  those  who  appeared  to  assume  to  transact  the  business, 
declined  giving  any  direct  answer  to  the  inquiry.  Some 
individuals  observed  that  they  knew  no  such  appointment 
made  in  Burlington  quarterly  meeting.  A  friend,  one  of 
the  committee,  then  observed  that  owing  to  circumstances- 
that  had  transpired  in  the  quarterly  meeting  in  the  pre- 
ceding eleventh  month,  the  quarterly  meeting  had  been 
under  the  necessity  of  adjourning  its  sitting  to  Burlington, 
and  in  the  adjourned  sitting  so  held,  in  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  painful  circumstances  that  the  members  within 
its  borders  were  then  in,  it  had  then  and  there  made  such 
an  appointment.  A  person  then  replied  that  there  was  no 
use  in  discussing  the  subject,  for  it  was  well  understood. 
This  person  I  am  pretty  clear  was  Jediah  Middleton.  It 
was  then  suggested  whether  it  was  not  giving  counte- 
nance to  such  disorders,  to  remain  in  the  meeting  house, 
when  the  persons  of  this  description  were  transacting 
what  they  assumed  to  call  the  business  of  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting.  (I  do  not  profess  to  give  the  words 
verbatim,  but  the  substance  I  do.)  After  several  senti- 
ments being  expressed,  it  was  concluded  that  it  would  be 
more  consistent  with  the  due  support  of  good  order,  to 
retire  to  another  place  and  transact  the  business  of  Ches- 
terfield preparative  meeting.  This  view  of  the  subject 
among  men  friends  was  communicated  to  the  women's 
meeting,  with  which  they  accorded,  and  the  members, 


106 

both  men  and  women,  of  that  preparative  meeting,  who 
were  disposed  to  adhere  to  and  support  the  estabHshed 
discipline  of  the  society,  together  with  the  committees  in 
attendance,  withdrew  from  the  meeting  house  and  retired 
to  a  private  house  not  far  off,  and  when  there  assembled 
the  members  of  that  preparative  meeting  first  appointed 
a  clerk,  and  then  proceeded  to  transact  the  business  of 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting;  after  going  through 
which,  they  took  into  consideration  where  the  next  pi'e- 
parative  meeting  should  be  held,  and  it  was  concluded 
either  to  hold  it  there,  or  that  the  subject  should  be  intro- 
duced into  the  monthly  meeting  for  consideration,  and 
that  it  should  be  held  at  such  place  as  the  monthly  meet- 
ing should  direct.  But  before  we  withdrew  from  the  meet- 
ing house,  it  was  distinctly  and  explicitly  stated  that  we 
withdrew  to  avoid  contention,  and  in  order  to  transact 
the  business  consistently,  and  that  we  considered  that 
those  who  had  been  accessary  to  our  being  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  thus  withdrawing,  were  intruding  on  our  rights, 
and  by  so  retiring  from  the  house  we  did  not  thereby  relin- 
quish any  rights  that  we  were  justly  entitled  to."  vol.  I.  Ev. 
pp.  338 — 340.  Here  then  we  have  a  full  development  of  all 
the  circumstances  which  took  place  at  the  preparative 
meeting  of  Chesterfield,  when  the  separation  occurred. 
Was  there  any  act  done  there  by  which  we  ceased  to  be 
that  preparative  meeting,  or  admitted  the  right  of  the  ad- 
verse party  to  this  character  ?  Certainly  not.  Friends  with- 
drew from  the  house  because  they  could  not,  consistently 
with  discipline,  countenance  the  proceedings  of  those  per- 
sons who  had  seceded  from  the  original  and  proper  head,  and 
attached  themselves  to  the  new  yearly  meeting  of  the 
"  Hicksites,"  held  in  Green  street.  They  withdrew  for  the 
very  purpose  of  maintaining  and  continuing  their  connex- 
ion with  the  original  monthly,  quarterly  and  yearly  meeting, 
of  which  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  was  a  con- 
stituent branch  at  the  time  when  the  fund  now  in  contro- 
versy was  created.  They  withdrew  to  maintain  their  sub- 
ordination to  these  meetings,  to  which  the  discipline  of  the 
society  bound  them  to  be  subordinate.  The  "  Hicksite" 
party  in  that  preparative  meeting  had  determined  to  go 
over  the  new  society,  and  its  new  meetings,  and  were 
then  acting  in  subordination  to  and  as  a  part  of  it.  What 
then  was  to  be  done?  Must  friends  remain,  and  go  over 
with  them  to  the  new  society?     There  was  no  other  al- 


107 

ternative  left,  but  to  withdraw,  and  they  accordingly  did 
so,  stating,  at  the  same  time,  that  by  so  doing  they  relin- 
quished none  of  their  rights,  but  that,  being  compelled  by 
the  necessity  of  the  case,  they  retired  from  the  house  for 
the  purpose  of  transacting  the  business  of  Chesterfield  pre- 
parative meeting  in  connexion  with  its  proper  yearly  and 
quarterly  an-d  monthly  meeting.  Was  there  any  thing  in 
this  act  by  which  they  forfeited  their  character  to  the  true 
preparative  meeting?  So  far  from  it,  that  the  facts  are 
the  very  reverse.  It  is  all-important  to  look  at  the  motive 
which  induced  them  to  take  this  step,  and  in  doing  so,  we 
find  that  it  was  with  the  avowed  object  of  maintaining  that 
character,  and  of  transacting  their  business  in  harmony 
and  order,  and  consistently  with  the  rules  of  their  disci- 
pline. 

Which  then,  I  would  ask,  is  the  same  preparative  meet- 
ing with  that  for  whose  use  the  fund  was  originally  created  ? 
Is  it  the  one  which  we  represent,  or  is  it  the  adverse  party  1 
They  cannot  both  be  the  same  preparative  meeting,  one 
must  be  a  spurious  meeting,  the  other  the  real  preparative 
meeting  of  Chesterfield.  What  have  we  done  to  lose  our 
rights,  or  to  change  our  character,  or  that  they  should  as- 
sume the  rights  or  privileges  which  belong  to  us.  They 
make  no  charge  against  us  of  having  changed  our  religious 
principles,  or  departed  from  the  society  of  Friends,  or  its 
discipline;  nor  of  having  thrown  off  our  subordination  or 
connexion  with  the  proper  yearly  meeting.  All  that  they 
can  or  do  allege,  is,  that  we  would  not  remain  in  the  meet- 
ing house,  and  unite  in  the  transaction  of  business  with  men 
who  were  determined  to  withdraw  from  the  regular  and 
established  meetings  of  the  society.  But  the  charge  we 
make  against  them,  and  which,  I  think,  we  have  proved  to 
be  true,  is  a  much  more  important  one.  We  say  they  have 
attached  themselves  to  a  monthly,  quarterly,  and  a  yearly 
meeting,  which  have  seceded,  have  separated  themselves 
from  the  society  of  Friends.  We  belong  to  the  society 
and  to  the  meetings  to  which  we  always  belonged.  You 
have  joined  a  new  one.  We  adhere  to  our  old  principles 
and  to  our  old  meetings,  you  have  attached  yourselves  to 
new  ones.  We  do  not  pretend  that  they  are  to  lose  their 
rights,  in  consequence  merely  of  what  passed  in  the  yearly 
meeting  of  1827.  But  we  contend  that  the  loss  they  have 
sustained,  is  in  consequence  of  their  own  acts:  of  their 
own  free  choice  to  join  the  new  society  and  its  meetings. 


109 

After  the  separation  which  took  place  from  the  society  and 
the  establishment  of  the  new  meeting  in  tenth  month  1827, 
they  had  their  option  either  to  remain  with  the  old  society 
or  to  join  the  new  one.  If  they  had  not  joined  the  new 
one,  but  remained  firm  with  the  old  society,  and  changed 
neither  their  principles  nor  their  connexion,  no  blame  could 
have  attached  to  them,  they  would  have  retained  all  their 
rights  and  privileges  as  members  of  the  Chesterfield  pre- 
parative meeting.  It  is  on  account  of  their  own  act,  their 
own  voluntary  election,  that  we  say  they  have  lost  their 
rights.  As  individuals  they  have  no  right  to  this  fund,  as 
members  of  the  preparative  meeting  for  whose  use  it  was 
created,  they  have  rights  to  it,  but  when  they  cease  to  be 
members  of  that  preparative  meeting  subordinate  to  the 
monthly,  quarterly,  and  yearly  meeting,  to  which  it  be- 
longed when  the  fund  was  created,  then  those  rights  cease. 
We  insist  that  by  separating  from  their  head,  and  absolv- 
ing themselves  from  its  authority,  and  taking  a  new  one, 
they  have  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  original  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  Chesterfield,  and  have  lost  their  rights.  It 
is  not  material  to  inquire  whether  they  have  forfeited  their 
rights,  or  lost  them.  I  do  not  contend  that  they  have  for- 
feited them,  but  that  they  have  lost  them,  and  for  our  pur- 
pose the  effect  is  the  same. 

A  member  of  the  society  of  Friends,  has  no  rights  which 
he  can  transfer  when  he  ceases  to  be  a  member ;  if  he 
withdraws  from  the  society  he  ceases  to  have  those  rights; 
if  he  returns  again,  and  unites  with  them,  his  rights  are  re- 
newed. We  do  not  ask  the  judgment  of  this  court,  to  for- 
feit the  rights  of  the  "Hicksite"  party;  we  only  ask  the 
court  to  say  that  these-  men  having  ceased  to  be  members 
of  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chesterfield,  for  whose  use 
the  fund  was  created,  cease  to  have  any  right  of  control 
or  disposition  of  it.  The  court  have  no  alternative  but  to 
give  it  to  one  party  or  the  other.  It  belongs  to  the  same 
preparative  meeting  for  which  it  was  originally  designed. 
It  cannot  belong  to  both;  both  cannot  be  that  one  same 
preparative  meeting;  one  must  be  the  true  preparative 
meeting,  the  other  a  counterfeit.  If  we  are  the  true  pre- 
parative meeting  it  belongs  to  us:  if  we  are  not  we  have 
no  right  to  it.  But  what  can  deprive  us  of  our  character, 
as  the  same  preparative  meeting?  It  is  not  necessary  that 
the  same  individuals  or  the  same  number  of  individuals 
should  remain,  in  order  to  constitute  the  same  preparative 


109 

meeting,  for  the  individuals  may  change,  and  the  meeting 
remain  the  same.  Nor  does  it  depend  upon  numbers  ;  a 
majority,  or  a  minority  may  separate  and  unite  with  other 
societies  or  meetings  under  a  new  head,  but  those  who  go 
away,  cannot  deprive  those  who  remain  of  the  character 
of  the  same  preparative  meeting.  It  matters  not  how  many 
go,  or  how  many  stay;  if  five  remain,  or  if  only  one  re* 
main,  the  trust  must  remain  for  the  benefit  of  that  one. 
The  gentleman  contends  that  the  majority  is  with  them, 
and  that  the  minority  cannot  have  the  character  of  the  true 
preparative  meeting.  They  have  yet  to  show  that  they 
are  the  majority,  but  suppose  they  were,  will  the  gentle- 
man's argument  hold  ?  Suppose  a  majority  of  the  meet- 
ing had  become  Presbyterians,  would  they  still  be  the  same 
preparative  meeting,  or  could  they  take  the  property  with 
them  ?  If  they  had  turned  Roman  Catholics,  would  they 
still  be  members  of  the  same  preparative  meeting  of  Friends'? 
This  would  be  absurd  and  preposterous.  The  whole  mat- 
ter depends  on  the  question  whether  they  continue  mem- 
bers of  the  same  society,  and  attached  to  the  same  pre- 
parative meeting.  If  they  have  lost  this  character,  they 
have  lost  their  right  to  the  property.  If  they  may  lose  it 
by  changing  their  faith,  their  religious  doctrines,  they  may 
lose  it  in  any  other  way  by  which  they  cease  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  same  society,  and  connected  with  the  same 
head.  If  we  have  not  shown  the  fact  that  they  are  not 
members  of  the  same  preparative  meeting,  we  have  failed 
in  making  out  our  case  and  must  submit.  But  we  insist 
that  there  cannot  be  a  right  in  any  majority,  (even  sup- 
posing the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  have  it,)  simply  because 
they  are  a  majority,  to  take  the  control  and  disposition  of 
this  fund.  It  belongs  to  the  same  preparative  meeting, 
for  whose  use  the  fund  was  created,  and  the  "  Hicksite" 
party  cannot  be  that  same  meeting,  because  they  have  left 
it,  and.  attached  themselves  to  a  new  yearly  meeting,  and 
a  new  head  which  did  not  exist  when  the  fund  was 
created. 

1  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  follow  the  learned  and 
eloquent  counsel  over  the  ground  which  he  took  in  exa- 
mining the  discipline  of  the  society,  and  endeavouring  to 
elude  the  control  which  the  superior  has  over  the  inferior 
meeting.  He  mistook  the  ground  upon  which  we  intend- 
ed to  rely ;  he  supposed  we  meant  to  insist  upon  a  for- 
feiture, in  consequence  of  the  setting  up  and  estabhshing, 
11 


110 

by  others,  a  new  yearly  meeting. .  Not  so.  "We  set  up 
against  them  their  own  acts :  we  rely  on  these  to  make  out 
our  case.  How  can  it  affect  this  question,  whether  the 
superior  meeting  have  power  over  an  inferior  meeting  to 
lay  it  down  or  not?  It  is  true  the  discipline  of  the  society 
gives  the  superior  meeting  unlimited  control ;  it  sets  no 
bounds  to  the  authority ;  yet  I  do  not  mean  to  contend 
that  the  superior  meeting  has  original  and  absolute  con- 
trol over  the  property  of  the  inferior.  We  do  not  ask  the 
court  so  to  decide,  nor  whether  they  have  any  control  at 
all.  It  has  no  bearing  at  all  on  this  question.  We  are 
looking  for  the  character  of  the  claimants  now  before  the 
court;  what  is  the  character  they  assume,  and  what  is  the 
character  which  justly  belongs  to  them.  This  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  power  of  superior  over  inferior  meetings ; 
it  depends  upon  the  acts  of  the  respective  parties,  and  when 
they  cease  to  be  members  of  the  original  society,  their 
rights  to  its  property  cease,  whether  this  inferiority  exists 
or  not. 

The  gentleman  has  extolled  the  beauty  of  the  Quaker 
discipline,  and  of  their  system  of  government.  I  agree 
with  him.  It  has  many  things  in  it  worthy  of  admiration. 
I  admire  it  for  its  simplicity  and  beauty;  but  I  cannot  ad- 
mire it  for  its  weakness,  and  if  the  discoveries  which  the 
gentleman  has  made  be  correct,  it  is,  in  one  point,  very 
weak.  The  gentleman  has  discovered,  it  seems,  that  the 
superior  meeting  has  no  control  or  authority  over  the  in- 
ferior ;  his  first  position  was  that  they  had  no  control,  but 
to  give  advice.  But  he  presently  grows  bolder,  and  says, 
they  cannot  even  give  advice,  unless  their  advice  is  previ- 
ously asked.  He  tells  your  honours,  that  a  monthly  meet- 
ing cannot  advise  a  preparative  meeting,  unless  the  latter 
choose  to  ask  that  advice.  They  may  see  them  depart- 
ing from  the  discipline,  from  the  principles  of  the  society, 
or  doing  wrong  in  any  other  way,  yet  they  cannot  inter- 
fere unless  the  preparative  meeting  invite  them  to  do  so. 
If  this  be  the  case,  it  is  certainly  a  great  defect.  But  does 
the  discipline  tell  us  any  thing  of  this  sort?  Does  it  re- 
cognize this  independence  and  irresponsibility  in  the  infe- 
rior meetings?  Far  otherwise;  the  paragraph  which  I 
cited  yesterday,  speaks  a  language  directly  the  reverse. 
It  says  in  express  terms,  "  The  connexion  and  subordina- 
tion of  our  meetings  for  discipline  are  thus:  preparative 
«ieetings  are  accountable  to  the  monthly ;  monthly  to  the 


Ill 

quarterly ;  and  the  quarterly  to  the  yearly  meeting.  So 
that  if  the  yearly  meeting  be  at  amj  time  dissatisfied  with 
the  proceedings  of  any  inferior  meeting,  or  a  quarterly 
meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  monthly  meet- 
ings, or  a  monthly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either 
of  its  preparative  meetings,  such  meeting  or  meetings 
ought  with  readiness  and  meekness  to  render  an  account 
thereof  when  required."  Here  is  nothing  like  the  inferior 
meeting  asking  advice,  but  at  any  time  when  the  superior 
meeting  is  dissatisfied  with  the  proceedings  of  an  inferior, 
it  may  call  it  to  account,  and  the  inferior  is  to  answer 
that  call  with  meekness  and  readiness.  Look  at  the  prac- 
tice of  the  society ;  do  they  not  constantly  appoint  com- 
mittees to  advise  and  assist  the  inferior  meetings?  Has 
not  this  been  the  custom  from  the  earliest  periods  of  its  ex- 
istence ?  Fortunately  for  them,  the  counsel  has  discovered 
their  error  on  this  point.  It  is  time  they  should  leave  every 
meeting  to  its  own  control  and  pleasure;  and  if  the  infe- 
rior meetings  never  choose  to  ask  advice,  the  superior 
must  not  attempt  to  give  it ;  they  are  free  from  all  con- 
trol. Such  an  idea  never  was  entertained  in  the  society. 
When  the  yearly  meeting  appointed  its  committee,  in  1827, 
the  '*'  Hicksites"  never  started  this  as  an  objection.  No 
man,  in  the  yearly  meeting  had  any  idea  of  such  a  thing. 
When  that  committee  went  down  to  the  quarterly  and 
monthly  meetings,  were  they  told,  that  as  they  had  not 
asked  the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  yearly  meeting,  it 
had  no  right  to  send  a  committee  down  ?  Did  the  infe- 
rior meetings  say,  '  When  we  ask  the  advice  of  the  year- 
ly meeting,  it  may  send  you,  but  until  then  you  have  no 
right  to  advise  us?' — no  such  thing.  Great  as  was  the 
hostility  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  this  committee,  such 
an  objection  was  never  once  advanced.  They  were  op- 
posed to  it  on  another  ground;  they  refused  to  receive  the 
advice  of  the  committee  on  the  ground  that  a  separation 
had  taken  place,  and  that  it  was  not  appointed  by  the 
yearly  meeting  to  which  they  were  attached.  If  superior 
meetings  can  give  no  advice  but  when  they  are  asked  for"" 
it,  their  superiority  is  nominal,  and  the  subordination  and 
accountability  prescribed  by  the  discipline  are  mere  empty 
sounds.  I  cannot  admire  this  system  for  its  weakness, 
though  I  may  for  its  simplicity.  When  it  is  represented 
to  me  as  the  tie  which  is  to  unite  the  society,  and  hold  it 
together  as  one  body,  and  yet  that  there  is  no  bond  of 


112 

union,  no  responsibility,  no  subordination  in  its  provisions; 
wiien  tiie  gentleman  tells  me,  that  the  superior  meetings 
have  no  authority  or  control  over  the  inferior;  that  each 
one  may  act  as  it  pleases,  independent  of  all  the  rest,  and 
yet  that  this  is  a  system  of  church  government,  I  cannot 
say  I  admire  it.  And  I  suspect  that  the  gentleman  will 
never  prevail,  even  with  his  own  party,  to  adopt  these 
notions.  Their  superior  meetings  will  not  cease  to  exer- 
cise control  over  the  inferior,  nor  will  they  consent  to  ap- 
point committees  to  give  advice  only  when  their  advice  is 
asked.  Halliday  Jackson,  in  his  testimony,  (vol.  IT.  p.  142) 
tells  us,  that  since  their  separation,  in  1827,  the  "  Hicksile" 
yearly  meeting  has  already  appointed  three  such  commit- 
tees, and  I  presume  they  will  continue  to  do  so,  whenever 
they  think  it  expedient,  without  consulting  the  inferior 
meetings. 

It  cannot  be  of  any  importance  in  the  decision  of  this 
cause,  that  the  "  Hicksite"  party  have  got  possession  and 
control  of  this  school.  The  gentleman  seems  to  think,  that 
because  the  school  house  and  school  are  in  their  hands, 
they  must  be  considered  as  entitled  to  this  money.  This, 
if  it  please  the  court,  is  the  very  right  in  question.  If  they 
are  the  same  preparative  meeting,  they  are  entitled  to  it; 
but  if  they  are  usurpers,  and  have  taken  from  us  our  rights 
and  property,  without  the  authority  of  law,  it  must  be  re- 
stored to  us.  It  is  idle  to  say,  that  as  we  have  taken  pos- 
session of  the  property,  and  have  it  in  our  hands,  it  is  ours, 
and  we  will  keep  it.  This  is  a  very  weak  ai-gument,  and 
a  very  bad  one;  one  which  would  cover  almost  any  spe- 
cies of  injustice.  The  question  before  the  court  is  one  of 
right,  and  not  of  possession.  Does  not  the  right  of  the 
trustees  of  the  school,  and  of  the  treasurer,  depend  on  the 
character  of  the  persons  who  appoint  them  ?  The  "  Hicks- 
ite party  say,  that  they  have  trustees,  and  that  these  trus- 
tees have  appointed  their  treasurer;  that  these  officers 
have  been  regularly  appointed,  and  that  therefore  they  are 
clothed  with  authority  to  demand  this  money.  Be  it  so; 
their  officers  can  only  derive  their  authority  from  the 
meeting  which  appointed  them,  and  if  that  meeting  has 
no  right  to  control  the  fund,  its  officers  can  have  none. 
We  also  have  trustees,  and  a  treasurer,  and  we  want  the 
money  to  use  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended, 
to  apply  it  to  the  use  of  those  who  are  entitled  to  it.  The 
opposite  party  t^ll  us,  that  th§  gchool  is  doing  great  good ; 


113 

that  they  apply  the  fund  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
created.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  fact,  will  it  not  be  pro- 
perly applied,  if  they  have  to  give  it  up  1  We  wish  to  ob- 
tain the  money  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  as  originally 
contemplated  in  the  trust,  and  if  we  do  not  so  use  it,  there 
is  a  power  to  compel  us.  The  right  of  these  trustees,  and 
of  the  treasurer,  must  depend  entirely  On  the  character  of 
those  who  appointed  them.  If  the  character  of  these  is 
good — if  they  are  the  same  Chesterfield  preparative  meet- 
ing recognized  in  the  trust — then  is  their  title  good ;  if 
they  are  not,  they  have  neither  right  nor  title  to  this  pro- 
perty. 

I  have  one  more  remark  to  make  on  this  part  of  my 
subject,  and  then  I  have  done  with  it.  The  trust  cannot 
change,  although  the  trustee  may  change  ;  and  if  the  trus- 
tee live  in  Philadelphia,  or  in  London,  or  elsewhere,  the 
arm  of  tliis  court  is  strong  enoufi^h  and  lonar  enouorh,  to 
prevent  the  fund  from  being  diverted  from  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  raised.  If  the  person  who  holds  this  money, 
were  to  attempt  to  convey  it  away  for  the  use  of  a  meet- 
ing in  London,  or  in  Philadelphia,  or  any  where  else,  other 
than  for  the  Cho^sterfield  preparative  meeting,  he  could  not 
do  it.  If  the  attempt  was  made,  this  coui't  would  grant 
an  injunction  and  annul  the  conveyance.  The  principle 
is  a  very  simple  and  safe  one.  The  trustee  may  change, 
the  trust  cannot ;  this  court  will  take  care  of  the  trust  fund, 
will  follow  it  into  the  hands  of  a  third  person  or  wherever 
it  may  be  conveyed,  and  see  that  it  is  faithfully  applied  to 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  originally  intended. 

With  these  remarks  I  shall  leave  this  part  of  the  case, 
not  doubting  but  the  industry  of  the  court  will  supply  any  de- 
ficiency which  may  have  occurred  in  my  examination  of 
this  subject.  I  think  I  have  now  made  out  my  first  propo- 
sition, viz.  that  a  separation  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  from 
the  society  of  Friends  has  taken  place ;  that  the  meeting 
held  annually  in  Green  street,  is  not  a  continuance  of  the 
original  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  but  that  it  is  a 
separate,  independent  and  distinct  meeting,  entirely  un- 
connected with  the  other.  This  being  the  case,  the  quar- 
terly, monthly  and  preparative  meetings,  connected  with 
and  composing  it,  must  be  of  the  same  character,  must 
be  separatists,  and  subject  to  all  the  legal  consequences  of 
that  character. 

I  shall  next  contend  that  this  schism  which  has  takea 
11* 


114 

place,  has  been  produced  by  a  difference  of  opinion  on  re- 
ligious doctrines.  Of  the  facts  of  the  separation  and  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  occurred,  we  are  already 
in  possession;  we  are  now  to  look  to  the  cause  which 
gave  rise  to  it.  We  allege  one  cause,  they  attribute  it 
to  others.  We  contend  that  it  originated  in  a  difference 
of  religious  doctrines,  they  say  that  it  arose  from  viola- 
tions of  the  discipline.  Let  us  then  proceed  to  the  in- 
vestigation, and  see  if  we  can  ascertain  the  true  source 
of  the  unfortunate  state  of  things  which  exist  among 
them. 

And  here  it  will  probably  be  suppe^ed  that  I  have  a 
difficult  task  to  perform ;  indeed,  the  gentleman  who  pre- 
ceded me  has  proclaimed  that  I  am  about  to  attempt  a 
task,  which  is  not  only  difficult,  but  impossible  ;  that  I 
cannot  ascertain  what  are  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive 
Friends,  nor  the  doctrines  of  the  society  now,  nor  of  the 
parties  before  this  court;  that  there  is  neither  test  nor 
standard  by  which  their  doctrines  can  be  tried,  and  that 
therefore  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  they  are.  But 
if  I  am  not  much  mistaken,  I  shall  lay  before  this  court  a 
body  of  evidence  upon  this  point,  which  must  carry  con- 
viction to  every  mind.  If  credit  is  due  to  human  testi- 
mony, to  written  documents,  to  solemn  declarations  of 
faith,  officially  made,  to  the  proceedings  of  the  yearly 
meeting,  or  to  years  of  experience  in  rehgious  society,  I 
think  !  shall  satisfy  the  court,  not  only  that  the  society  of 
Friends  have  fundamental  doctrines,  a  belief  in  which  is 
essential  to  meinbership,  but  also  a  departure  from  these 
fundamental  doctrines  on  the  part  of  the  "  Hicksites." 
Upon  this  branch  of  the  subject  I  shall,  in  the  first  place, 
lay  before  the  court  a  document  proceeding  from  the  par- 
ty themselves,  of  a  character  which  must  place  them  in 
an  unenviable  predicament.  Fortunately  for  the  cause  of 
truth,  we  have  possession  of  a  document  that  can  leave 
no  room  to  doubt  as  to  the  real  ground  of  the  separation. 
When  that  party  thought  fit  to  separate  from  the  society 
in  the  Philadelphia  yearl}^  meeting,  "  to  make  a  quiet  re- 
treat," in  a  moment  of  honest  feeling  and  candour,  with- 
out knowing  the  legal  consequences  of  the  act,  they 
thought  proper,  in  order  to  justify  their  conduct  to  the 
world,  and  especially  to  the  members  of  their  own  socie- 
ty, to  prepare  and  publish  an  address  showing  the  true 
grounds  of  their  secession.    They  issued  this  address  for 


115 

the  very  purpose  of  telling  the  whole  community  what 
were  the  causes  which  induced  them  to  take  the  import- 
ant step  of  withdrawing  from  the  society  with  which 
they  had  been  connected.  It  is  their  manifesto,  and  they 
must  stand  by  it;  they  are  solemnly  bound  by  the  de- 
clarations it  contains.  It  is  not  a  hasty  or  sudden,  but 
a  deliberate  and  sober  act;  it  is  not  the  act  of  one  indi- 
vidual, or  of  a  few  individuals,  but  the  act  of  the  whole 
body  there  assembled,  uniting  in  one  common  address,  and 
thereby  solemnly  declaring  to  the  world  the  principles 
upon  which  they  have  separated.  The  document  to  which 
I  allude  is  the  address  issued  by  the  "  Hicksite"  party,  at 
their  meeting  in  Green  street  meeting  house,  in  fourth 
month,  1827.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  vol.  II. 
of  Ev.  p.  453.  It  holds  this  language  :  "  With  this  great 
object  in  view,  our  attention  has  been  turned  to  the  pre- 
sent condition  of  this  yearly  meeting,  and  its  different 
branches,  and  by  evidence  on  every  hand  we  are  con- 
strained to  declare  that  the  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupt- 
ed; that  a  division  exists  among  us,  developing  in  its  pro- 
gress, views  which  appear  incompatible  with  each  other, 
and  feelings  averse  to  a  reconciliation.  Doctrines  held  hy 
one  part  of  society,  and  which  we  believe  to  be  sound  and 
edifying,  are  pronounced  by  the  other  part  to  be  unsou?id  and 
spurious.  From  this  has  resulted  a  state  of  things  that  has 
proved  destructive  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  in  which 
the  fruits  of  love  and  condescension  have  been  blasted, 
and  the  comforts  and  enjoyments  even  of  social  intercourse 
greatly  diminished.  Measures  have  been  pursued  which 
we  deem  oppressive,  and  in  their  nature  and  tendency  cal- 
culated to  undermine  and  destroy  those  benefits,  to  estab- 
lish and  perpetuate  which,  should  be  the  purpose  of  every 
religious  association."  Here  is  language  too  plain  and  ex- 
plicit to  be  misunderstood  or  evaded.  It  is  a  clear  and 
positive  declaration  that  doctrines  formed  the  original 
ground  of  the  separation.  Whatever  subsequent  ditficul- 
ties  they  may  complain  of,  or  whatever  "  measures  may 
have  been  pursued  which  they  deemed  oppressive,"  they 
declare  them  all  to  have  resulted  from  the  differences 
which  existed  in  reference  to  religious  d6ctrines.  Doc- 
trines which  one  part  considered  sound  and  edifying,  are 
considered  by  the  other  to  be  unsound  and  spurious ;  and 
from  this  cause,  all  the  difficulties  took  their  rise.  Can 
there  be  a  doubt  then,  that  there  was  a  division,  a  schism. 


116 

in  this  religious  society,  arising  from  disunion  on  nnatters 
of  faitii,  on  fundamental  doctrines?  The  seceders  them- 
selves so  declare  it  to  the  world ;  it  is  now  too  late  to 
deny  it,  and  attempt  to  find  some  other  cause.  Their  de- 
claration is  either  true  or  false.  Will  they  acknowledge  it 
to  be  false  ?  No.  I  will  not  say,  they  dare  not  acknow- 
ledge it  to  be  so,  for  I  know  not  what  they  dare  not  do, 
but  they  cannot  now  change  their  ground,  and  the  attempt 
to  do  so  which  has  been  made  cannot  avail  them  any 
thing ;  they  stand  fully  committed,  and  although  their  in- 
genious counsel  have  used  much  adroitness  in  endeavour- 
ing to  make  it  appear  that  it  was  not  doctrine  which  pro- 
duced the  separation,  but  violations  of  the  discipline,  yet 
their  own  clients  fully  admit  the  point  for  which  we  con- 
tend, viz.  that  doctrine  is  at  the  foundation  of  this  schism. 
It  is  in  vain  to  go  back  to  the  year  1819,  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  clerk  in  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827,  to  the 
preparation  of  the  extracts  by  the  meeting  for  sufferings 
in  1822,  or  to  any  other  period  of  fact,  and  endeavour  to 
manufacture  one  or  all  into  the  cause  of  the  schism. 
Here  is  their  own  admission,  their  own  voluntary  publica- 
tion given  to  the  world  as  the  solemn  declaration  by  which 
they  meant  to  stand  or  fall.  We  have  only  to  point  you 
to  that,  to  answer  all  that  has  been  said  about  violations 
of  the  discipline;  the  party  must  stand  or  fall  by  it,  there 
is  no  possibility  of  escape.  It  is  the  standard  by  which 
they  must  be  tried  ;  a  standard  too  of  their  own  erection, 
A  party  cannot  publish  to  the  world  one  state  of  facts, 
and  then  come  before  the  court  and  rely  on  another  state 
of  facts.  It  is  proved  then  by  their  own  voluntary  con- 
fession that  the  controversy  was  about  doctrines,  and  that 
this  produced  the  separation.  I  shall  presently  inquire 
what  the  doctrines  were  which  the  "  Hicksite"  party  held 
to  be  sound  and  edifying,  and  which  the  others  pronounced 
to  be  unsound  and  spurious.  I  might  refer  the  court  to  a 
great  body  of  evidence  in  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses^ 
proving  the  same  position,  but  when  we  are  in  possession 
of  a  document  so  full  and  explicit,  and  coming  from  the 
party  themselves,  it  is  infinitely  superior  to  the  testimony 
of  any  witness.  There  is,  however,  one  part  of  the  evi- 
dence to  which  I  will  call  your  attention.  Abraham  Low- 
er, one  of  their  own  witnesses,  a  "Hicksite"  preacher,  in- 
fected with  their  new  doctrines,  and  who  has  taken  a  very 
active  part  in  the  secession,  he  infornris  us  that  the  diffi- 


117 

culties  and  divisions  in  the  society  did  arise  from  doctrines. 
As  this  is  the  testimony  of  one  of  their  leaders,  and  very 
short,  I  beg  leave  to  read  it.  The  witness  having  stated 
that  the  address  of  the  "Hicksite"  party  in  fourth  month, 
1827,  was  united  with  and  issued  by  their  meeting,  this 
question  was  asked — "  That  address  in  alluding  to  the 
circumstances  which  interrupted  the  unity  of  the  yearly 
meeting,  and  produced  a  division,  describes,  as  one  of  the 
causes,  in  these  words,  'doctrines  held  by  one  part  of  so- 
ciety and  which  we  believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying  are 
pronounced  by  the  other  part  to  be  unsound  and  spurious. 
From  this  has  resulted  a  state  of  things  that  has  proved 
destructive  of  peace  and  tranquillity,  and  in  which  the 
fruits  of  love  and  condescension  have  been  blasted,  and 
the  comforts  and  enjoyments  even  of  social  intercourse 
greatly  diminished.'  Will  you  please  to  state  what  these 
doctrines  are  to  which  the  address  here  alludes?"  The 
witness  answers,  "  I  think  it  not  very  likely  that  I  shall." 
But  the  circumstances  stated  I  believe  to  be  matter  of 
fact.  It  was  on  account  of  doctrines  that  that  body  of 
elders  were  organized  as  a  party  against  Elias  Hicks; 
■who  were  as  before  stated  a  part  of  that  caucus  held  at 
the  close  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings.  The  same  indi- 
viduals who  were  most  active  in  producing  the  rupture 
that  then  occurred  in  that  unwarrantable  attack  upon 
Elias  Hicks,  and  more  indirectly,  though  really,  upon  the 
monthly  meeting  of  Jericho,  of  which  Elias  Hicks  was  a 
member,  and  had  given  him  a  certificate  of  its  unity  with 
him,  which  of  course  included  their  approbation  of  the 
doctrines  he  preached,  and  of  VVestbury  quarter,  of  which 
Jericho  monthly  meeting  was  a  branch,  and  of  the  yearly 
meeting  of  New  York.  It  was  on  doctrines  that  Joseph 
Whitall  arraigned  him  before  that  self-constituted  body 
who  thus  arrayed  themselves  in  opposition  to  Elias  Hicks, 
and  those  who  approved  of  him,"  &c.  Vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  473, 4, 

Here  is  a  candid  admission  by  oneof  their  own  preach- 
ers, a  member  of  the  junto  with  whom  the  idea  of  separa- 
tion originated,  that  doctrine  was  the  ground  of  separa- 
tion, and  that  it  was  on  account  of  Elias  Hicks' doctrines, 
that  the  elders  of  Philadelphia,  against  whom  so  much 
complaint  has  been  made,  took  the  steps  they  did  in  refer- 
ence to  him. 

My  next  inquiry  is,  what  are  the  doctrines  held  by  one 
part  of  the  society,  and  which  they  believe  to  be  sound 


118 

and  edifying,  but  which  the  other  part  pronounce  to  he 
unsound  and  spurious.  The  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  al- 
ready so  obvious,  that  any  remark  of  mine  would  seem 
almost  superfluous.  Your  honours  will  perceive  that  Elias 
Hicks  and  the  opposition  to  him  and  his  doctrine,  is  the 
great  burden  of  complaint  with  all  the  witnesses  of  that 
party;  their  whole  cause  rests  on  him  and  his  doctrines. 
But  here  we  are  met  with  another  difficulty;  the  learned 
gentleman  who  preceded  me,  gravely  assures  us  that  the 
society  of  Friends  have  no  doctrines ;  that  the  only  thing 
necessary  with  them  is  a  belief  in  the  light  \yithin,  Is  it 
not  a  hnost  astonishing  thing;  w^ill  any  man  believe  it,  that 
this  society  should  be  contending  about  doctrines,  that  this 
controversy  should  actually  be  carried  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  produce  a  severance  of  the  society,  and  yet  that 
they  should  have  no  doctrines  about  which  to  contend  ? 
Have  they  doctrines  to  dispute  about,  to  divide,  to  sever 
them,  and  yet  no  doctrines  to  unite  in,  for  the  worship  of 
God?  Can  any  man  credit  such  a  contradiction  as  this? 
A  society  holding  no  doctrine,  nothing  but  a  profession  of 
the  inward  light  or  divine  spirit,  leaving  every  man  to  be- 
lieve and  worship  as  he  thinks  fit,  with  no  faith,  no  rule  or 
test  of  conscience,  or  judgment  in  matters  of  belief,  and 
yet  this  very  society  disputing,  contending,  and  even  se- 
parating about  doctrines!  Can  they  suppose  they  will 
ever  convince  this  court,  or  any  man,  of  the  truth  of  this 
allegation?  No.  The  facts  are  too  stubborn;  if  they 
have  doctrines  to  dispute  about,  we  want  to  find  out  what 
they  are.  If  they  differ  on  points  of  faith,  if  the  schism 
has  arisen  from  this  cause,  one  party  must  have  embraced 
new  doctrines,  w'hile  the  other  party  adhere  to  the  ancient 
principles  of  Friends.  Here,  then,  we  have  clear  ground 
for  the  position  we  have  taken  before  the  court.  What 
were  these  doctrines  ?  Was  it  the  doctrine  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  divine  spirit  on  the  mind  of  man  ?  This  is 
not  pretended  by  any  witness.  It  is  no  where  alleged 
that  this  formed  the  subject  of  controversy.  No.  It  was 
the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks — the  doctrines  promulgated 
by  him  to  the  world — which  he  communicated  in  his  let- 
ters, and  in  his  public  testimonies  to  those  who  assembled 
to  hear  him,  declaring  the  discoveries  he  had  made,  the 
changes  which  his  views  had  undergone,  and  the  senti- 
ments he  then  entertained.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  Elias 
Hicks,  which  his  party  considered  sound  and  edifying,  and 


119 

which  the  other  part  of  the  society  pronounced  to  be  un- 
sound and  spurious.  The  evidence  of  their  own  witnesses 
must  satisfy  any  man,  that  no  other  doctrine  but  Hicks's 
could  have  been  the  subject  of  controversy.  They  do  not 
pretend  that  the  "Orthodox"  hold  any  doctrines  which  are 
unsound  or  spurious,  or  which  they,  the  "  Hicksiie"  party, 
have  ever  pronounced  to  be  so.  The  difference  must 
therefore  be  respecting  their  own  doctrines;  the  doctrines 
of  Elias  Hicks.  Our  object,  then,  is  to  discover  what 
these  doctrines  are,  about  which  the  difficulty  arose,  to 
show  that  they  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  society  of 
Friends,  but  that  they  have  been  pronounced  by  it  to  be 
unsound  and  spurious.  It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should 
put  our  finger  on  the  precise  article  of  faith  which  formed 
the  point  of  dispute ;  it  is  enough  if  the  "  Hicksite"  party 
hold  doctrines  differing  from  the  doctrines  of  the  society 
of  Friends,  if  this  fact  is  made  out,  all  is  ascertained 
which  is  requisite  for  the  decision  of  this  cause. 

The  whole  argument  of  the  opposite  counsel  turns  on 
this  one  position ;  they  endeavour  to  protect  and  shelter 
themselves  under  the  idea  that  their  doctrines  cannot  be 
tested  and  shown   to  be   contrary   to   those   of  ancient 
Friends,  because,   as   they  allege,  the    society  have   no 
creed,  or  written  articles  of  faith ;  this  is  their  whole  de- 
pendence.    They  place  themselves  upon  this  ground,  and 
if  they  cannot  maintain  themselves  here,  they  have  no 
ground  whatever  to  stand  upon.     But  before  they  took 
this  position,  they  ought  first  to  have  satisfied  the  court, 
that  the  religious  doctrines  of  a  society  cannot  be  arrived 
at,  unless  they  have  certain  written  articles  of  faith,  pub- 
licly known  and  subscribed.     I  have  never  before  heard 
any  such  principle  contended  for.     I  have  never  under- 
stood that  if  you  come  into  court  to  ascertain  the  princi- 
ples of  a  sect  or  party,  or  any  other  fact,  that  you  must 
of  necessity  show  written  proof.     If  there  were  no  writ- 
ten standard  at  all,  yet  if  we  could  show  by  witnesses 
that  they  have  a   public  approved  minister  or  teacher, 
who   is   communicating  to  them  doctrines  destructive  of 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  religion,  do  we 
not  then  show  fully  that  the  congregation  are  tinctured 
with  his  principles^     And  if  they  remain  with  him,  attend 
upon  his  ministry,  and  officially  declare  their  approbation 
of  him,  are  they  not  to  be  considered  as  holding  his  doc- 
trines?    Is  it  necessary,  in  order  to  enable  men  to  join  in 


no 

the  worship  of  their  Creator,  that  they  should  have  a 
written  creed  ?  If  they  unite  in  the  great  fundamental 
doctrines  of  our  holy  religion,  it  is  sufficient,  whether  they 
have  a  creed  or  not.  It  is  usual,  I  admit,  to  have  them; 
but  is  it  essential?  May  not  their  rights  be  as  well  pro- 
tected without  as  with  it?  The  question  is  not  whether 
the  society  has  a  creed,  but  whether  they  have  certain 
known  and  fundamental  doctrines  which  they  profess  to 
hold  as  essential,  as  fundamental.  We  are  not  going  to 
pry  into  the  secrets  of  men's  hearts  to  inquire  there  what 
their  belief  is;  our  object  is,  to  ascertain,  from  their  own 
acts,  and  from  their  own  declarations,  what  their  doctrines 
are.  If  we  succeed  in  this,  and  show  that  those  doctrines 
are  different  from  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Friends,  we 
effect  our  object. 

What  is  the  Bible  but  a  written  creed  ?  Is  it  not  the 
creed  of  every  orthodox  christian,  and  if  he  hold  doc- 
trines different  from  those  contained  in  that  book,  is  there 
not  a  standard  by  which  he  may  be  tried?  If  then  we 
try  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  by  this  standard,  can  we 
find  a  better?  The  society  of  Friends  have  again  and 
again,  declared  their  willingness  that  all  their  doctrines 
should  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  and  that  whatsover  they 
did  or  said,  which  was  contrary  thereto,  should  be  con- 
demned as  a  delusion.  But  when  we  attempt  to  appply 
this  test  to  Elias  Hicks,  we  find  that  he  is  unwilling  to 
abide  by  it.  He  tells  us  expressly,  "  I  am  not  willing  that 
my  doctrines  should  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  or  the 
writings  of  ancient  Friends."  See  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  215. 
He  thought  he  knew  more  than  all  the  apostles,  and  ap- 
pears to  have  had  a  belter  opinion  of  himself,  than  of  all 
the  saints  in  the  calendar.  Reason,  he  says,  is  better  than 
revelation,  and  revelation  good  for  nothing,  unless  sup- 
ported by  reason. 

He  disclaims  the  revelation  of  the  holy  gospel,  as  a 
standard  to  be  tried  by.  He  may  disclaim,  but  it  will  be 
in  vain.  The  society  which  he  founded  may  disclaim,  but 
it  is  for  this  court  to  say,  whether  they  have  not  widely 
departed  from  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  the  religious 
society  of  Friends,  and  are  no  longer  to  be  considered  as 
a  part  of  its  communion. 

But  we  have  other  standards.  Is  not  the  teaching  of 
the  approved  ministers  of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  a  test  of 
the  doctrines  they  hold?    Do  we  not  judge  men  by  the 


121 

company  they  keep  ?  and  may  we  not  judge  a  congrega- 
tion by  the  teachers  they  hsten  to,  and  with  whom  they 
declare  themselves  in  perfect  union  1    Would  any  congre- 
f^ation  entertain  among  them,  a  minister  of  religion  who 
preached  sentiments  adverse  to  those  which  they  held  sa- 
cred?   Would  they  declare  their  union  with,  and  appro- 
bation of  his  ministry,  unless  they  held  the  same  religious 
opinions  which  he   dehvered  weekly,  or  daily,  in  their 
hearing  1    The  counsel  seem  to  think  that  in  the  society  of 
Friends,  an  individual  may  preach  any  doctrine  he  pleases ; 
that  he  may  preach  universalism,  or  unitarianism ;  or  if 
he  prefer  it,  he  may  preach  trinitarian  doctrine;  he  may 
select  his  own  doctrine,  and  preach  what  he  pleases.  This 
is  what  the  opposite  party  contend  for;  but  it  is  impossible 
that  any  society  should  exist  upon  such  principles  :   there 
never  can  be  a  religious  society  where  the  membei^s  do  not 
unite  in  faith,  as  to  their  great  fundamental  principles.  We 
want  no  better  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this,  than  the  sad 
state  of  facts  now  before  the  court.     Men  cannot  unite  in 
worship   unless  they  agree  in  faith.     I  mean  as  to  the 
leading    and  essential  doctrines  of  religion.     This  case 
proves  it.     What  has  been  the  consequence  of  a  contrary 
state  of  things  1  and  what  will  ever  be  the  consequence 
of  it  ?    One  minister  holds  forth  one  doctrine,  and  another 
minister  a  contrary  doctrine.     Opposition    sermons    are 
preached,  one  denying,  and  another  advocating  the  doc- 
trines of  the  atonement  and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  When 
the  circumstances  took  place  in  the  meetings  in  Philadel- 
phia, of  which  the  "  Hicksite''  party  complain  as  an  inter- 
ruption of  Elias  Hicks  and  other  of  their  ministers ;  what 
occasioned  if?     It    was   because  they  had  avowed   and 
preached  Unitarian  doctrines.     The  elders  felt  it  their 
duty  to  rise  and  declare  that  these  were  not  the  doctrines 
of  the  society,  and  to  state  to  the  audience  what  the  prin- 
ciples of  Friends  on  those  points  of  faith  were.     Let  any 
man    seriously  put   the  question  to  himself,  whether  he 
would  be  willing  to  belong  to  such  a  society,  where  he 
must  be  compelled  to  hear  doctrines,  which  he  holds  most' 
sacred,  and  which  he  believes  essential  to  his  salvation, 
publicly  denied  and  reprobated.     Jf  your  honours  please, 
such  a  state  of  things  is  calculated  to  bring  religion  itself 
into  disgrace.     We  are  told  by  the  opposite  party,  that  it 
matters  not  what  doctrines  a  man  holds,  or  what  doctrines 
he  preaches  in  our  meetings,  or  whether  he  holds  no  doc- 
12 


122 

trines  at  all,  if  his  moral  conduct  is  good,  and  he  professes 
to  act  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit.  But  how  are  we 
to  try  whether  he  be  under  theginfluence  of  a  true,  or  of  a 
false  spirit?  Is  his  appealing  to  reason  to  satisfy  us?  We 
all  know  that  it  is  deceitful.  How  often  does  it  mislead? 
Many  who  have  been  induced  by  it  to  imagine  themselves 
in  the  right  way,  have  found  in  the  end  that  they  were  in 
the  wrong.  Ygt  there  is  a  standard  to  which  we  may 
safely  appeal  and  by  which  we  may  try  doctrines,  and 
this  standard  is  the  Bible.  But  this  will  not  do  for  Mr. 
Hicks :  other  societies  may  have  standards  if  they  choose, 
but  he,  and  those  attached  to  him,  and  his  doctrines,  will 
have  none. 

But  I  contend  that  where  a  minister  publicly  communi- 
cates to  his  congregation  or  meetings,  certain  religious 
doctrines,  and  the  society  to  which  he  belongs  gives  him 
a  certificate  that  he  is  in  full  unison  with  them,  at  the  very 
time  that  he  is  preaching  those  doctrines,  and  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  them,  that  society  is  accountable  for  his 
doctrines;  the  principles  he  advocates  must  be  considered 
theirs,  must  attach  to  them,  and  they  be  held  responsible 
for  them.  The  society  of  which  Elias  Hicks  was  a  mem- 
ber, the  society  which  he  founded,  acted  thus  towards 
him.  After  the  separation,  after  all  the  controversy  re- 
specting his  doctrines,  and  after  the  schism  which  those 
doctrines  had  occasioned,  in  the  year  1828,  when  he  at- 
tended their  yearly  meeting  at  Green  street  in  Philadel- 
phia, they  gave  him  a  certificate  declaring  their  full  unity 
with  him  and  his  services,  thereby  identifying  themselves 
with  him  and  his  doctrines.  I  refer  the  court  for  proof 
of  this,  to  the  testimony  of  Thomas  Willis,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p. 
112,  113,  and  to  two  of  the  witnesses  of  the  "  Hicksite" 
party,  viz.  Abraham  Lower,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  468,  and  Halli- 
day  Jackson,  vol.  II.  Ev.  p.  167.  From  this  evidence  it  is 
apparent  that  he  was  in  full  union  with  this  new  yearly 
meeting,  up  to  the  time  of  his  decease,  and  that  they  offi- 
cially declared  their  approbation  of  him. 

The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  seem  to  have  taken 
very  much  the  ground  of  Hicks  himself;  they  disclaim 
all  standards,  every  thing  by  which  their  real  opinions  on 
religious  doctrines  may  be  tested.  If  we  want  to  try 
them  by  the  scriptures,  they  reject  them  ;  if  by  the  wri- 
tings of  the  early  Friends,  they  disclaim  them  also.  No- 
thing will  answer  for  them  but  a  written  creed ;  this  they 


123 

say  we  have  not,  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  foirusTo>-^ 
prove  that  their  doctrines  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends.  But  this  is  a  very  strange  and  irrational 
idea.  Does  not  history  give  us  the  rehgious  opinions  of 
many  religious  societies,  whose  creeds,  if  they  had  any, 
we  have  never  seen  ?  Are  not  the  different  denominations 
of  religious  professors  readily  distinguished  from  each 
other,  by  persons  who  have  never  seen  their  respective 
creeds?  What  has  produced  the  various  denominations  of 
professors?  Has  it  not  been  a  difference  of  opinion  as 
respects  some  points  of  doctrine?  And  are  the  society  of 
Friends  alone  an  exception  to  this?  I  should  like  to  hear 
the  answer  of  the  gentlemen  to  this  inquiry.  Why  did 
Fox,  Barclay  and  Penn,  leave  the  established  church  of 
England,  if  not  on  account  of  a  difference  of  opinion  on 
some  points  of  faith?  This  was  one  ground  of  their  sepa- 
ration, though  they  had  their  peculiar  testimonies  on  other 
points  besides.  It  is  almost  universally  the  case,  that 
where  a  separation  takes  place  in  a  religious  society,  it 
arises  from  a  difference  in  doctrine.  I  could  wish  that  the 
present  schism,  which  has  given  rise  to  this  cause,  had 
been  occasioned  by  different  views  of  the  discipline  only. 
If  there  was  no  other  ground  of  diflerence,  I  might  hope 
that  the  wall  of  separation  would  eventually  be  broken 
down,  and  that  the  parties  would  again  unite.  But  if  they 
are  divided  by  adverse  views  respecting  essential  doctrines 
of  the  christian  religion,  there  is  a  gulph  between  them  as 
impassable  as  that  between  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus. 
Here  is  their  misfortune ;  this  is  the  rock  on  which  they 
have  split.  Neither  party  can  expect  the  other  to  surren- 
der the  doctrines  they  hold,  and  they  must  therefore  en- 
dure all  the  evils  which  result  from  this  painful  state  of 
things. 

I  think  the  gentlemen  spoke  without  book,  when  they 
told  you  that  the  society  of  Friends  had  no  doctrines 
which  can  be  proved.  I  think  it  can  be  shown,  that  they 
have  doctrines  which  are  essential  and  fundamental,  even 
from  the  book  of  Discipline,  by  which  they  profess  to  be 
governed.  As  I  said  before,  we  have  many  standards,  and 
I  think  we  may  find  such  standards  in  the  book  of  Disci- 
pline, in  their  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith,  in  those 
works  which  have  been  approved  and  published  by  the 
society,  for  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  their  principles, 
and  also  in  the  declarations  of  faith  sanctioned  and  issued 


124 

^/  the  society.  If  these  cannot  be  considered  as  sufficient 
evidence  of  their  doctrines,  I  know  not  what  can. 
The  introduction  to  the  book  of  Discipline,  sets  forth  the 
object  for  which  it  was  instituted ;  declaring  that  they 
"  have  been  engaged  to  meet  together  for  the  worship  of 
God  in  spirit,  according  to  the  direction  of  the  holy  law- 
giver; as  also  for  the  exercise  of  a  tender  care  over  each 
other,  that  all  may  be  preserved  in  unity  of  faith  and 
practice,"  &c.  How  is  it  possible,  I  would  ask,  that  the 
members  of  this  society  should  be  preserved  in  unity  of 
faith,  if  this  society  has  no  faith,  no  doctrines  that  can  be 
proved,  or  if,  as  the  gentlemen  say,  every  member  is  to 
hold  what  religious  opinions  he  pleases?  I  will  now  refer 
the  court  to  page  23  of  the  book  of  Discipline,  where  we 
find  the  following :  "  If  any  in  membership  with  us  shall 
blaspheme,  or  speak  profanely  of  Almighty  God,  Christ 
Jesus,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  or  she  ought  early  to  be  ten- 
derly treated  with  for  their  instruction,  and  the  convince- 
ment  of  their  understanding,  that  they  may  experience  re- 
pentance and  forgiveness;  but  should  any,  notwithstand- 
ing this  brotherly  labour,  persist  in  their  error,  or  deny 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  im- 
mediate revelation  of  the  holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity 
of  the  holy  Scriptures,  as  it  is  manifest  they  are  not  one 
in  faith  with  us,  the  monthly  meeting  where  the  party  be- 
longs, having  extended  due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit 
of  the  individual,  without  eflect,  ought  to  declare  the  same, 
and  issue  their  testimony  accordingly." 

Now  does  not  the  book  of  Discipline,  in  these  passages, 
clearly  require  that  the  members  should  be  in  unity  of 
faith?  It  is  the  very  language  used.  It  declares,  respect- 
ing those  who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  or  the  authenti- 
city of  the  holy  scriptures,  that  it  is  manifest  they  are  not 
one  in  faith  with  the  society,  and  therefore  they  ought  to 
be  dealt  with,  and  if  not  reclaimed,  they  should  be  dis- 
owned. Here  is  a  full  recognition  of  the  belief  of  the  so- 
ciety in  the  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  and  in  the  authentici- 
ty of  the  holy  scriptures — that  these  are  fundamental  doc- 
trines— and  that  those  who  persist  in  a  denial  of  them,  are 
to  be  disowned.  The  gentleman  who  preceded  me  has 
told  us  that  all  that  is  to  be  found  in  this  little  book  may 
be  taken  as  true.  We  have  enough  here,  then,  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society  of  Friends,  to  show  what  they  hold, 
and  have  ever  held  to  be  fundamental.    We  do  not  con- 


125 

tend  that  those  who  unite  for  the  purpose  of  social  wor- 
ship, must  agree  in  all  matters  of  religious  opinion,  but  we 
do  hold  that  they  must  unite  in  regard  to  all  cardinal  prin- 
ciples— the  fundamental  doctrines  and  great  landmarks  of 
the  christian  religion.  If  they  differ  in  these,  it  will  dis- 
unite and  drive  them  to  different  places  of  worship. 

In  page  12  of  the  same  book,  I  find  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "  This  meeting  doth  earnestly  exhort  all  parents, 
heads  of  families,  and  guardians  of  minors,  that  they  pre- 
vent, as  much  as  in  them  lies,  their  children,  and  others 
under  their  care  and  tuition,  from  hearing  or  reading 
books  and  papers  tending  to  prejudice  the  profession  of  the 
Christian  religion — to  create  the  least  douht  concerning  the 
authenticity  of  the  holy  scriptures,  or  of  those  saving  truths 
declared  in  them,  lest  their  infant  and  feeble  minds  should 
be  poisoned  thereby,  and  a  foundation  laid  for  the  greatest 
evils."  And  again  in  page  100,  "  We  tenderly  and  ear- 
nestly advise  and  exhort  all  parents  and  heads  of  families, 
that  they  endeavour  to  instruct  their  children  and  families 
in  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  christian  religion,  as 
contained  in  the  scriptures ;  and  that  they  excite  them  to 
the  diligent  reading  of  those  excellent  writings,  which 
plainly  set  forth  the  miraculous  conception,  birth,  holy  life^ 
wonderful  works,  blessed  example,  meritorious  death,  glo- 
rious resurrection,  ascension,  and  mediation  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;  and  to  educate  their  children  in 
the  belief  of  these  importa?it  truths,  as  well  as  in  the  belief 
of  the  inward  manifestation  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  their  own  minds,  that  they  may  reap  the  benefit 
and  advantage  thereof,  for  their  own  peace  and  everlasting 
happiness ;  which  is  infinitely  preferable  to  all  other  con- 
siderations." 

These  passages  not  only  show  what  great  importance 
the  society  of  Friends  attach  to  the  belief  of  these  doc- 
trines, but  they  evince  that  they  considered  them  as  fun- 
damental, as  all-important  to  their  members,  and  that 
whatever  tended  to  create  the  least  doubt  concerning  them, 
was  laying  the  foundation  for  the  greatest  of  evils.  We 
have  here,  I  think,  from  the  book  of  Discipline  itself,  a  full 
and  most  comprehensive  creed — an  acknowledgment  of 
all  the  essential  articles  of  the  christian  faith — and  incor- 
porated, too,  in  the  code  of  laws  agreed  upon  by  the  year- 
ly meeting  itself,  for  the  government  of  its  subordinate 
meetings  and  its  members.  But  I  will  refer  the  court  to 
12* 


126 

another  passage  in  page  95  of  the  same  book.    It  appears 
to   me  that  this  religious  Society  have  taken  uncommon 
pains  to   preserve  their  members  in   the  unity  of  faiths 
There  is  no  religious  body  with  which   I  am  acquainted, 
whose  discipUne  has  so   carefully  guarded  against  the  in- 
troduction of  unsound  doctrines.    They  have  adopted  one 
method  different  from  all  other  denominations,  and  which, 
if  carried  into  effect,  must  produce    unity  in    religious 
opinion.     They  require  that  the  quarterly  meetings  should 
answer  certain  queries,  at  stated  periods,  in  order  that  the 
yearly  meeting  may  be  informed  what  is  the  state  of  every 
quarter  under  its  charge.     One  of  these  queries  addressed 
to  the  select  meetings  is  in  these  words.     "  Second  query. 
Are  ministers  sound  in  word  and  doctrine  ?"     Can  your 
honours  point  me  to  such  a  provision  as  this  in  the  disci- 
pline of  any  other  religious  society?     Has  any  other  de- 
nomination of  christians  ever  taken  so  much  pains  to  pre- 
serve its  ministers  sound  in  word   and  doctrine,  and  to 
prevent   its   members  from   being    contaminated   by  the 
preaching  of  unsound  principles?     I  know  of  none.     Now 
is  it  not  most  strange  that  this  society  should  be  at  all  this 
pains  and  care — that  they  should  so  scrupulously  guard 
against  the  inroads  of  antichristian  doctrines  or  principles 
adverse  to  their  faith — that  they  should  call  upon  their 
quarterly  meetings  to  answer  whether  their  ministers  are 
sound  in  faith,  and  yet,  as  the  opposite  counsel  allege,  have 
no  ascertained  faith — no  doctrines  by  which  they  can  be 
tested?     How  are  they  to  answer?     Suppose  they  an- 
swer that  they  are  unitarians.     According  to  the  gentle- 
man's ideas  this  would  not  make  them  unsound  in  doc- 
trine, nor  would  the  avowal  of  any  other  belief     It  is  in 
vain  for  him  to  say  that  the  society  of  Friends  have  no 
articles  of  faith — no  written  creed.     They  have  well  de- 
fined and  settled  doctrines — doctrines  that  are  fundamental, 
and  for  the  disbelief  of  which,  their  members  may  be  dis- 
owned.    We  come  here  to  try  the  "  Hicksite"  party  by 
these  doctrines,  the  acknowledged  doctrines  of  the  primi- 
tive Friends.     If  that  party  hold  these  doctrines,  we  have 
no  ground  of  complaint  against  them.    But  if  they  do  not, 
if  they  have  separated  on  the  ground  of  a  difference  re- 
specting these  doctrines,  then  they  must  abide  by  the  con- 
sequences. 

But  1  go  further.     In  a  Treatise  on  Church  Govern- 
ment, written  by  Robert  Barclay,  one  of  the  most  emi- 


127 

nent  of  the  early  Friends,  when  describing  the  system  of 
church  government  in  the  society  of  which  he  was  one  of 
the  founders,  we  find  him  laying  down  principles  on  the 
subject  of  unity  in  doctrines  about  which  there  can  be  no 
mistake.  In  page  53  of  this  work,  he  says,  "  As  to  the 
first,  whether  the  church  of  Christ  hath  power  in  any 
cases  that  are  matters  of  conscience,  to  give  a  positive 
sentence  and  decision,  which  may  be  obligatory  upon  be- 
lievers, I  answer  affirmatively,  she  hath ;  and  shall  prove 
it  from  divers  instances  both  from  scripture  and  reason. 
For  first,  all  principles  and  articles  of  faith  which  are  held 
doctrinally  are,  in  respect  to  those  that  believe  them,  mat- 
ters of  conscience.  We  know  the  Papists  do,  out  of  con- 
science, (such  as  are  zealous  among  them)  adore,  worship 
and  pray  to  angels,  saints,  and  images,  yea,  and  to  the 
eucharist,  as  judging  it  to  be  really  Christ  Jesus,  and  so 
do  others  place  conscience  in  things  that  are  absolutely 
wrong.  Now  I  say,  we  being  gathered  into  the  belief  of 
certain  principles  and  doctrines,  without  any  constraint 
or  worldly  respect,  but  by  the  mere  force  of  truth  upon 
our  understandings,  and  its  power  and  influence  upon 
our  hearts ;  these  principles  and  doctrines,  and  the  prac- 
tices necessarily  depending  on  them  are,  as  it  were,  the 
terms  that  have  drawn  us  together,  and  the  bond  by  which 
we  became  centered  into  one  body  and  fellowship,  and 
distinguished  from  others.  Now  if  any  one  or  more,  so 
engaged  with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other  doctrine 
or  doctrines,  contrary  to  those  which  were  the  ground  of 
our  being  one;  who  can  deny  but  the  body  hath  power 
in  such  a  case  to  declare.  This  is  not  according  to  the 
truth  we  profess ;  and  therefore  we  pronounce  such  and 
such  doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with  which  we  cannot  have 
unity,  nor  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellowship  with  those 
that  hold  them.  And  so  such  cut  themselves  off  from 
being  members,  by  dissolving  the  very  bond  by  which 
they  were  linked  to  the  body.  Now  this  cannot  be  ac- 
counted tyranny  and  oppression,  no  more  than  in  a  civil 
society,  if  one  of  the  society  should  contradict  one  or 
more  of  the  fundamental  articles  upon  which  the  society 
was  contracted,  it  cannot  be  reckoned  a  breach  or  ini- 
quity in  the  whole  society  to  declare  that  such  contra- 
dictors have  done  wrong,  and  forfeited  their  right  in  that 
society ;  in  case  by  the  original  constitution,  the  nature  of 
the  contradiction  implies  such  a  forfeiture,  as  usually  it  is, 


128 

and  will  no  doubt  hold  in  religious  matters.  As  if  a  body 
be  gathered  into  one  fellowship,  by  the  belief  of  certain 
principles,  he  that  comes  to  believe  otherwise,  naturally 
scattereth  himself;  for  that  the  cause  that  gathered  him, 
is  taken  away;  and  so  those  that  abide  constant  in  de- 
claring the  thing  to  be  so  as  it  is,  and  in  looking  upon  him, 
and  witnessing  of  him  to  others,  (if  need  be)  to  be  such 
as  he  has  made  himself,  do  him  no  injury.  1  shall  make 
the  supposition  in  the  general,  and  let  every  people  make 
the  application  to  themselves,  abstracting  from  us;  and 
then  let  conscience  and  reason  in  every  impartial  reader 
declare,  whetJier  or  not  it  dolh  not  hold.  Suppose  a  peo- 
ple really  gathered  into  the  belief  of  the  true  and  certain 
principles  of  the  gospel,  if  any  of  these  people  shall  arise 
and  contradict  any  of  these  fundamental  truths,  whether 
have  not  such  as  stand,  good  right  to  cast  out  such  an  one 
from  among  them,  and  to  pronounce  positively.  This  is 
contrary  to  the  truth  we  profess  and  own,  and  therefore 
ought  to  be  rejected  and  not  received,  nor  yet  he  that  as- 
serts it,  as  one  of  us.  And  is  not  this  obligatory  uj)on  all 
the  members,  seeing  all  are  concerned  in  the  like  care  as 
to  themselves,  to  hold  the  right  and  shut  out  the  wrong. 
I  cannot  tell  if  any  man  of  reason  can  deny  this;  how- 
ever, I  shall  prove  it  next  from  the  testimony  of  the  scrip- 
ture."    Barclay's  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  pp.  53  to  50. 

Here  are  the  sentiments  of  one  of  the  primitive  Friends, 
when  speaking  of  the  system  of  government  adopted  by 
the  society.  This  book  has  been  recognized  as  a  standard 
work  by  the  society  everywhere  .It  has  been  published  and 
republished  by  them.,  by  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadel- 
phia, and  looked  up  to,  as  describing  the  government  to 
which  they  must  submit,  and  by  which  they  must  be 
bound.  In  this  work  it  is  clearly  laid  down,  that  they 
have  certain  fundamental  doctrines,  and  that  if  a  man 
preach  other  doctrines  contrary  to,  or  incompatible  with 
those  fundamental  principles,  they  are  bound  to  drive  him 
from  them,  to  disown  him  and  his  doctrines.  They  are 
bound  by  their  duty  to  God,  and  by  their  duty  to  iheir 
fellow  men,  to  do  so.  What !  are  they  to  hear  one  of 
their  members  openly  deny  the  divinity  and  atonement  of 
their  Saviour,  when  they  themselves  hold  those  doctrines 
to  be  among  the  bonds,  the  fundamental  principles  which 
unite  them  together,  and  yet  to  take  no  measures  to  dis- 
own such  members  or  to  prevent  the  preaching  of  such 


129 

doctrines  !  The  gentleman  must  show  not  only  that  they 
have  no  fundamental  doctrines,  but  that  they  have  no 
church  government — no  control  over  their  members — no 
standard  to  ascertain  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong 
in  the  doctrines  they  promulgate.  Barclay  clearly  points 
out,  the  course  which  the  "  Hicksite"  party  ought  to  have 
taken.  They  came  into  the  society  on  the  ground  of  unity 
of  faith,  professing  certain  doctrines,  and  if  they  became 
convinced  that  these  doctrines  were  wrong,  or  that  other 
principles  were  better,  they  ought  to  have  left  the  society 
peaceably  and  quietly — to  have  acknowledged  that  they 
had  departed  from  the  terms  of  the  contract,  broken  the 
bond  which  united  them  to  it.  Here  is  the  principle  upon 
which  they  ought  to  have  withdrawn.  In  the  language  of 
Barclay  "  they  scattered  themselves"  from  the  society, 
and  they  ought  to  have  left  it.  This  evidently  was  their 
first  intention ;  but  when  told  that  by  thus  withdrawing 
they  would  lose  the  property  of  the  society,  they  take  an- 
other ground.  And  notwithstanding  all  they  have  said 
and  done  to  promote  Elias  Hicks  and  his  principles — not- 
withstanding the  whole  burden  of  their  complaint  is  made 
up  of  the  opposition  to  him  and  his  doctrines,  they  now 
wish  to  deny  their  leader  as  they  have  denied  their  Ss-; 
viour. 

In  page  57  of  the  same  book,  Barclay  says ;  "  If  the 
apostles  of  Christ  of  old,  and  the  preachers  of  the  ever- 
lasting Gospel  in  this  day,  had  told  all  people,  however 
wrong  they  found  them  in  their  faith  and  principles,  Our 
charity  and  love  is  such,  we  dare  not  judge  you,  nor  sep- 
arate from  you ;  but  let  us  all  live  in  love  together,  and 
every  one  enjoy  his  own  opinions,  and  all  will  be  well; 
how  should  the  nations  have  been,  or  what  way  can  they 
now  be,  brought  to  truth  and  righteousness :  would  not 
the  devil  love  this  doctrine  well,  by  which  darkness  and 
ignorance,  error  and  confusion,  might  still  continue  in  the 
earth  unreproved  and  uncondemned."  And  again  in  the 
next  page  the  same  author  says,  "Were  such  a  principle 
to  be  received  or  believed,  that  in  the  church  of  Christ, 
no  man  should  be  separated  from,  no  man  condemned  or 
excluded  the  fellowship  and  communion  of  the  body,  for 
his  judgment  or  opinion  in  matters  of  faith,  then  what 
blasphemies  so  horrid,  what  heresies  so  damnable,  what 
doctrines  of  devils,  but  might  harbour  themselves  in  the 
church  of  Christ?    What  need  of  sound  doctrine,  if  no 


tm 

doctrine  make  unsound  1  What  need  for  convincing  and 
exhorting  gainsayers,  if  to  gainsay  be  no  crime?  VVhere 
should  the  unity  of  the  faith  be  1  Were  not  this  an  inlet 
to  all  manner  of  abomination,  and  to  make  void  the 
whole  tendency  of  Christ's  and  his  apostles'  doctrine,  and 
render  the  gospel  of  none  effect ;  and  to  give  a  liberty  to 
the  unconstant  and  giddy  will  of  man,  to  innovate,  alter, 
and  overturn  it  at  his  pleasure  ?  So  that  from  all  that  is 
above  mentioned  we  do  safely  conclude,  that  where  a 
people  are  gathered  together  unto  the  belief  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  if  any  of  that 
people  shall  go  from  their  principles,  and  assert  things 
false  and  contrary  to  what  they  have  already  received, 
such  as  stand  and  abide  firm  in  the  faith,  have  power  by 
the  spirit  of  God,  after  they  have  used  christian  endea- 
vours to  convince  and  reclaim  them,  upon  their  obstinacy, 
to  separate  from  such,  and  to  exclude  them  from  their 
spiritual  fellowship  and  communion  :  for,  otherwise  if  this 
be  denied,  farewell  to  all  Christianity,  or  to  the  maintain- 
ing of  any  sound  doctrine  in  the  church  of  Christ."  Bar- 
clay, &c.  pp.  57-59. 

Here  then  we  have  the  sentiments  of  Robert  Barclay, 
one  of  ine  founders  of  the  society,  as  to  the  consequences 
which  would  result  from  the  principle  which  the  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  contend  for,  permitting  every  man 
in  the  society  to  hold  what  religious  opinions  he  pleases, 
without  accountability  and  without  restraint.  He  shows 
in  strong  terms  the  evils  and  confusion  which  would  arise 
from  it,  and  the  impossibility  of  maintaining  any  christian 
society  where  such  a  principle  is  tolerated.  We  find  then, 
that  the  society  has  certain  fundamental  doctrines,  which 
are  the  terms  of  their  communion,  and  the  bond  which 
binds  them  together ;  that  they  have  a  system  of  church 
government;  that  this  government  extends  to  the  preser- 
vation of  their  members  in  the  belief  of  these  principles, 
and  that  a  denial  or  disbelief  of  them  forfeits  their  mem- 
bership, if  their  ministers  or  members  undertake  to  pro- 
mulgate false  doctrines,  they  may,  nay,  it  is  their  duty,  to 
exclude  them  from  the  society,  if  they  persist  in  it.  In 
conformity  with  the  principles  laid  down  by  Barclay,  as 
well  as  with  its  discipline,  the  society  has  been  in  the  con- 
stant practice,  from  the  earliest  periods  of  its  history,  of 
disowning  those  who  held  and  promulgated  unsound  doc- 
trines. For  proof  of  this,  I  refer  to  the  evidence  of  Samuel 


131 

Bettle,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  60.  William  Jackson,  lb.  p.  09. 
Thomas  Willis,  lb.  p.  108.  Samuel  Parsons,  lb.  p.  170, 
171.  Thomas  Evans,  lb.  p.  305,  306.  We  were  told  by 
the  gentleman  yesterday,  that  if  Hicks  held  these  doc- 
trines, he  ought  to  have  been  dealt  with  by  the  monthly 
meeting  of  Jericho,  that  they  might  advise  him,  but  if  he 
did  not  choose  to  take  their  advice  (as  I  understood  him) 
they  could  deal  no  further  with  him.  Barclay  does  not 
hold  such  language  as  this,  but  directly  the  contrary;  and 
we  have  already  shown  that  the  monthly  meeting  of  Jer- 
icho, could  not,  and  would  not,  deal  with  him,  because 
they  had  embraced  his  doctrines  and  held  them  to  be 
sound.  It  is  true  that  the  society  of  Friends  have  been 
cautious  in  the  selection  of  terms  when  declaring  their 
belief  on  the  mysterious  doctrines  of  the  christian  relig- 
ion, and  have  rejected  some  of  the  school  terms  which 
are  in  common  use,  preferring  to  express  themselves  in 
the  language  of  the  holy  scriptures,  as  being  most  proper 
and  becoming.  On  this  ground  it  was  that  they  objected 
to  the  creeds  and  forms  of  faith  which  were  commonly 
used  when  the  society  took  its  rise,  and  not  because  they 
did  not  hold  the  doctrines  intended  to  be  expressed  in 
them.  The  society  was  frequently  called  on  to  come  for- 
ward and  make  known  the  religious  principles  which 
they  held ;  they  did  so,  and  declared  their  belief  in  terms 
which  cannot  be  mistaken.  And  now,  to  tell  us  that  there 
is  no  test  by  which  they  can  determine  whether  a  preacher 
maintains  sound  doctrine  or  unsound,  is  contrary  to  the 
express  letter  of  their  discipline,  to  all  the  sentiments  of 
the  society,  and  to  these  acknowledged  declarations  of 
their  doctrines  which  have  existed,  and  been  universally 
received  among  them,  for  a  century  and  a  half. 

Wednesday,  afternoon — 3.  P.  M.  My  present  object  is  to 
show  that  the  unfortunate  difference  which  exists  between 
the  parties  now  before  the  court,  respects  doctrines.  To 
show  what  the  doctrines  of  the  ancient  Friends,  and  which 
the  society  still  holds  are,  and  also  the  difference  which 
exists  between  them  and  the  doctrines  held  and  promul- 
gated by  Elias  Hicks  and  embraced  by  his  adherents.  I 
have  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  society  of  Friends  hold 
certain  doctrines  which  they  consider  fundamental,  and 
for  the  disavowal  of  which  their  members  may  be  dis- 
owned and  put  out  of  their  community.  It  has  been  as- 
serted by  the  gentleman  on  the  opposite  side,  that  this 


132 

society  as  a  body  had  never  published  any  declaration  of 
their  faith  to  the  world,  except  it  was  in  the  express  lan- 
guage o(  scripture,  and  we  were  challenged  to  produce 
any  such  docunnent  or  authority.  It  was  admitted  by  the 
gentleman,  at  the  time  the  challenge  was  given,  that  if 
we  could  produce  such  a  document,  written  in  human  lan- 
guage, to  use  his  phrase,  he  would  concede  that  it  was  a 
creed,  and  binding  on  the  members  of  the  society.  I  shall 
now  undertake  to  prove  that  the  society  of  Friends  have 
done  this;  that  they  have  issued  such  a  document,  and  if 
I  do  so,  then  the  gentleman  on  his  own  ground  stands  fully 
committed.  I  understand  him  to  assert  that  the  society 
never  have  done  this,  except  in  scripture  language;  that 
there  is  no  document  which  we  can  produce,  as  an  au- 
thentic act,  authorized  by  them,  containing  a  declaration 
of  their  faith  in  human  language.  In  order  to  prove  that 
publications  of  this  kind  have  been  made  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  society,  as  a  community,  I  shall  refer  first  to 
the  declaration  of  faith,  contained  in  the  2nd  vol.  Sewel's 
History,  p.  472,  et.  seq.  This  declaration  was  issued  in 
1693,  in  order  to  set  forth  before  the  world,  what  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society  were.  If  I  am  not  much  mistaken, 
this  document  will  furnish  a  complete  answer  to  the  chal- 
lenge which  has  been  given  by  the  gentleman  on  the  other 
side.  It  was  published  under  the  sanction  of  the  society, 
and  approved  by  them.  It  is  not  written  in  scripture  lan- 
guage, but  in  human  language.  It  was  not  only  examined 
and  approved  in  London,  by  the  meeting  there,  which  is 
authorized  by  the  discipline  to  make  such  publications, 
but  it  has  been  adopted  by  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadel- 
phia, and  sanctioned  and  approved  by  it.  1  refer  to  the 
testimony  of  Thomas  Evans,  vol.  I.  Ev.  pp.  288,  297,  for 
proof  of  this  fact.  In  this  declaration  we  find  the  follow- 
ing language,  viz.  "  We  sincerely  profess  faith  in  God  by 
his  only  begotten  son  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  our  light  and 
life,  our  only  way  to  the  Father,  and  also  our  only  Media- 
tor and  Advocate  with  the  Father.  That  God  created  all 
things,  he  made  the  worlds  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  he 
being  that  powerful  and  living  Word  of  God  by  whom 
all  things  were  made  ;  and  that  the  Father,  the  Word  and 
Holy  Spirit  are  one,  in  divine  being  inseparable,  one  true 
living  and  eternal  God,  blessed  forever.  Yet  that  this 
Word  or  Son  of  God,  in  the  fulness  of  time  took  flesh, 
became  perfect  man,  according  to  the  flesh,  descended  and 


133 

came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David,  but  was  mira- 
culously conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the 
virgin  Mary.  And  also  further  declared  powerfully  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  spirit  of  sanctification, 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  That  in  the  Word  or 
Son  of  God  was  life,  and  the  same  life  was  the  light  of 
men ;  and  that  he  was  the  true  light  which  enlightens 
every  man  coming  into  the  world ;  and  therefore  that  men 
are  to  believe  in  the  light  that  they  may  become  the  chil- 
dren of  the  light.  Hereby  we  believe  in  Christ  the  Son 
of  God  as  he  is  the  light  and  life  within  us ;  and  wherein 
we  must  needs  have  sincere  respect  and  honour  to,  and 
belief  in  Christ,  as  in  his  own  unapproachable  and  in- 
comprehensible glory  and  fulness,  as  he  is  the  Fountain 
of  life  and  light,  and  Giver  thereof  unto  us ;  Christ  as  in 
himself,  and  as  in  us,  being  not  divided.  And  that  as  man 
Christ  died  for  our  sins,  rose  again,  and  was  received  up 
into  glory  in  the  heavens :  he  having,  in  his  dying  for  all, 
been  that  one  great  universal  offering  and  sacrifice,  for 
peace,  atonement  and  reconciliation  between  God  and 
man ;  and  he  is  the  propitiation,  not  for  our  sins  only,  but 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  We  are  reconciled  by 
his  death,  but  saved  by  his  life. 

"  That  Jesus  Christ,  who  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
throne  of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens,  yet  he  is  our  King, 
High  Priest,  and  Prophet  in  his  church,  the  Minister  of 
the  sanctuary,  and  of  the  true  tabernacle  which  the  Lord 
pitched,  and  not  man.  He  is  Intercessor  and  Advocate 
with  the  Father  in  heaven,  and  there  appearing  in  the 
presence  of  God  for  us,  being  touched  with  the  feeling  of 
our  infirmities,  sufferings,  and  sorrows.  And  also  by  his 
spirit  in  our  hearts,  he  maketh  intercession  according  to  the 
will  of  God,  crying,  Abba,  Father.  For  any  whom  God 
hath  gifted  and  called,  sincerely  to  preach  faith  in  the 
same  Christ  both  as  within  us,  and  without  us,  cannot  be 
to  preach  two  Christs,  but  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  having  respect  to  those  degrees  of  our  spiritual 
knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  in  us,  and  to  his  own  unspeak- 
able fulness  and  glory  as  in  himself,  in  his  own  entire 
being,  wherein  Christ  himself,  and  the  least  measure  of 
his  light,  or  life,  as  in  us,  or  in  mankind,  are  not  divided 
nor  separable,  no  more  than  the  sun  is  from  its  light.  And 
as  he  ascended  far  above  all  heavens  that  he  might  fill  all 
things,  in  his  fullness  cannot  be  comprehended  or  contain- 
13 


134 

ed  in  any  infinite  creature,  but  in  some  measure  known 
and  experienced  in  us,  as  we  are  capable  to  receive  the 
same,  as  of  his  fulness  we  have  received  grace  for  grace. 
Christ  our  Mediator  received  the  Spirit  not  by  measure, 
but  in  fulness,  but  to  every  one  of  us  is  given  grace,  ac- 
cording to  the  measure  of  his  gift. 

"  That  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God  should  be  preach- 
ed in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
being  one  in  power,  wisdom  and  goodness,  and  indivisi- 
ble, are  not  to  be, divided  in  the  great  work  of  man's  sal- 
vation. 

"  We  sincerely  confess  and  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  both 
as  he  is  true  God,  and  perfect  man,  and  that  he  is  ihe  au- 
thor of  our  living  faith  in  the  power  and  goodness  of  God, 
as  manifested  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  his  own 
blessed  spirit,  or  divine  unction,  revealed  in  us,  whereby 
we  inwardly  feel  and  taste  of  his  goodness,  life  and  vir- 
tue, so  as  our  souls  live  and  prosper  by  and  in  him ;  and 
the  inward  sense  of  this  divine  power  of  Christ,  and  faith 
in  the  same,  and  this  inward  experience,  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  make  a  true,  sincere  and  perfect  christian  in 
spirit  and  life. 

'•That  divine  honour  and  worship  is  due  to  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  he  is  in  true  faith  to  be  prayed  unto,  and 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  called  upon,  as  the 
primitive  christians  did,  because  of  the  glorious  union,  or 
oneness  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  that  we  cannot 
acceptably  offer  up  prayers  and  praises  to  God,  nor  re- 
ceive a  gracious  answer  or  blessing  from  God,  but  in  and 
through  his  dear  Son,  Christ. 

"That  Christ's  body  that  was  crucified  was  not  the 
Godhead,  yet  by  the  power  of  God  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  and  that  the  same  Christ  that  was  therein  crucified, 
ascended  into  heaven,  and  glory,  is  not  questioned  by  us. 
His  flesh  saw  no  corruption,  it  did  not  corrupt;  but  yet 
doubtless,  his  body  was  changed  into  a  more  glorious  and 
heavenly  condition  than  it  was  in  when  subject  to  divers 
sufferings  on  earth,  but  how  and  what  manner  of  change 
it  met  withal,  after  it  was  raised  from  the  dead,  so  as  to 
become  such  a  glorious  body,  as  it  is  declared  to  be,  is  too 
wonderful  for  mortals  to  conceive,  apprehend,  or  pry  into  ; 
and  more  meet  for  angels  to  see.  The  scripture  is  silent 
therein  as  to  the  manner  thereof,  and  we  are  not  curious 
to  inquire,  or  dispute  it ;  nor  do  we  esteem  it  necessary  to 


135 

make  ourselves  wise  above  wJiat  is  written,  as  to  the 
manner  or  condition  of  Christ's  glorious  body  as  in  heaven, 
no  more  than  to  inquire  how  Christ  appeared  in  divers 
manners  or  forms,  or  how  he  came  in  among  his  disci- 
ples, the  doors  being  shut,  or  how  he  vanished  out  of  their 
sight  after  he  was  risen."     See  Jewel's  History,  p.  475. 

vol.  n. 

Now,  may  it  please  the  court,  this  declaration  of  faith 
has  actually  been  adopted  by  this  very  society,  and  by 
the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia.  Is  there  not  here  a 
full  and  explicit  declaration  of  their  faith?  Is  it  not  a 
creed  according  to  the  learned  gentlemen's  own  under- 
standing, and  upon  their  own  terms  ?  Can  a  religious  de- 
nomination be  more  fully  committed,  than  the  society  of 
Friends  are  by  this  document  1  It  was  adopted  and  pub- 
lished by  that  very  society,  of  whom  the  opposite  party  now 
tell  us  that  they  have  no  faith,  no  fundamental  doctrines :  and 
it  was  adopted  too,  to  put  down  and  silence  the  charge 
of  denying  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  gentleman  will  not  say  that  this  declaration  is  couch- 
ed in  scripture  language.  It  is  in  human  language,  to  use 
his  own  expression,  and  therefore,  according  to  his  own 
showing,  it  is  a  creed,  sanctioned  and  adopted  by  the  so- 
ciety. How  then  can  the  gentleman  tell  us  that  they  have 
no  creed.  We  have  here  a  full  and  explicit  answer  to  the 
challenge  he  has  given,  and  upon  his  own  ground  he 
stands  committed.  It  will  appear  from  an  examination  of 
the  testimony,  that  this  declaration  of  faith  was  not  only 
examined  and  approved  by  the  morning  meeting  in  Lon- 
don, which  is  a  body  authorized  to  inspect  and  approve 
of  writings  declaratory  of  the  religious  faith  of  the  soci- 
ety, but  that  it  was  also  adopted  and  published  by  the  so- 
ciety here.  It  stands  clothed  therefore  with  all  the  au- 
thority of  a  creed,  or  confession  of  faith,  which  any  re- 
ligious community  can  possibly  issue  to  the  world. 

I  will  refer  the  court  to  another  declaration  of  faith, 
contained  in  Sewel's  History,  vol.  II.  p.  483,  issued  on  be- 
half of  the  society  of  Friends,  and  presented,  in  their  name, 
to  the  British  parliament,  as  evidence  of  their  belief  in 
Jesus  Christ.  This  declaration,  no  more  than  the  former, 
is  clothed  in  scripture  language;  it  is  in  human  language; 
it  is  a  solemn  declaration  made  to  parliament  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  satisfying  them  that  the  society  do  be- 
lieve  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,     It   is  impossible   to 


136 

evade  it,  without  imputing  to  the  society  dissimulation  and 
insincerity  ;  this  will  not  be  attempted ;  it  would  be  mon- 
strous to  suppose  that  the  society  made  a  declaration  of 
this  solemn  nature,  as  evidence  of  their  belief,  and  yet  that 
they  were  not  candid  and  honest  when  they  made  it.  It 
is  for  the  "  Hicksite"  party  to  show  that  these  declarations 
do  not  contain  the  faith  of  the  society ;  they  stand  record- 
ed in  its  histor}^  sanctioned  by  its  meetings,  and  looked 
up  to  by  the  members  as  the  articles  of  their  belief.  The 
opposite  counsel  referred  the  court  to  the  Journal  of 
George  Whitehead  for  the  history  of  another  declaration 
of  faith,  the  one  prepared  by  the  society,  and  inserted  in 
the  toleration  act.  It  is  in  these  words:  "I  profess  faith 
in  God  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  eternal  Son,  the 
true  God,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit, one  God,  blessed  forever; 
and  do  acknowledge  the  holy  Scriptures  of  the  old  and 
new  Testament,  to  be  given  by  divine  inspiration."  The 
court  will  see  by  referring  to  the  passage,  that  Whitehead 
himself  considers  it  a  creed.  The  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side,  deny  that  the  society  have  any  creed ;  Whitehead, 
on  the  contrary,  considers  that  declaration  as  such,  and 
binding  upon  all  the  members  of  the  society.  We  have 
heard  much  said  about  the  objection  of  this  society  to 
creeds;  but  that  objection  was  not  to  a  creed  or  declara- 
tion of  faith  simply,  nor  did  it  arise  from  any  unwilling- 
ness to  put  down  in  writing  the  fundamental  principles  of 
their  belief,  their  objection  was  to  temporal  powers  pre- 
scribing articles  of  faith,  and  compelling  an  assent  to 
them,  by  the  arm  of  the  secular  power.  The  society  has 
alMays  been  willing  to  abide  by  the  articles  of  faith,  which 
they  adopted;  they  never  wished  to  have  it  in  their  power 
to  say  one  thing  one  day,  and  another  thing  on  another 
day.  They  held  that  all  men  had  a  right  to  adopt  such 
religious  opinions  as  they  conscientiously  believed  to  be 
proper,  and  that  no  earthly  power  ought  to  control  them 
in  it;  but  they  also  maintained  that  when  anybody  of 
men  adopted  and  published  their  belief,  they  must  stand 
or  fall  by  it. 

It  is  strange,  indeed,  that  after  all  the  declarations  of 
faith  made  by  the  society  of  Friends,  after  the  many  books 
published  by  them  in  order  to  show  their  real  principles, 
it  should  now  be  contended  that  they  have  no  standard 
of  religious  doctrines,  that  they  rely  solely  on  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  and  that  the  Spirit  dictated  one  thing  at 


-•swiifiS. 


137 

one  time,  and  another  thing  at  another  time.  They  re- 
fused, it  is  true,  to  admit  of  king,  parliament,  or  any  earth- 
ly power,  to  prescribe  articles  of  faith  for  them,  but 
having  solemnly  adopted  and  declared  their  religious  prin- 
ciples, they  never  did  refuse  to  be  bound  by  them.  Here 
then  are  three  instances  in  which  the  gentleman  stands 
defeated  on  his  own  ground,  and  with  his  own  weapons. 
Here  is  a  creed,  authoritative  and  binding  on  the  mem- 
bers of  the  society,  couched,  not  in  scripture,  but  in  hu- 
man language,  adopted  and  published  to  the  world  as  tests 
of  their  religious  faith.  The  society,  as  1  remarked  this 
tnorning,  have  taken  great  pains  that  their  principles  and 
doctrines  might  not  be  misunderstood  by  the  world.  From 
their  peculiar  mode  of  worship,  suspicions  were  entertain- 
ed by  some,  that  they  did  not  adopt  the  Christian  faith. 
To  meet  these  groundless  suspicions,  they  have  repeated- 
1}',  as  a  body,  authorized  publications  to  be  made  explana- 
tory of  their  belief,  as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the 
testimony  of  Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  59,  60.  The 
witness  says,  "  For  these  doctrines,  [viz.  the  doctrines  of 
the  society  of  Friends]  witness  refers  to  George  Fox's  let- 
ter to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes,  contained  in  his  journal, 
to  a  declaration  presented  to  a  committee  of  the  British 
parliament  in  1689,  a  declaration  presented  to  parliament 
in  1693,  to  Barclay's  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  to  Barclay's  Apology;  this  latter  work  was  original- 
ly written  in  the  Latin  language,  and  has  been  translated 
into  different  languages,  and  largely  circulated,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  making  known  the  doctrines  of  the  socie- 
ty. We  are  bound  by  the  doctrines  contained  in  this 
work,  and  the  society  is  every  where  identified  with  the 
sentiments,  opinions,  and  doctrines,  laid  down  in  this  work. 
Witness  also  refers  to  "  Evans's  Exposition"  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society  of  Friends,  as  containing  a  true  and 
comprehensive  view  of  the  doctrines  of  the  society;  also 
Barclay's  "  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,"  a  work  on  church 
governmdYit.  The  witness  further  saith,  that  these  works 
here  exhibited,  as  well  as  all  those  mentioned  by  him,  are 
regular  standard  works  in  the  society  of  Friends,  and  have 
been  acknowledged  and  published  by  them  at  different 
times,  in  the  regular  way  of  publication,  established  by 
their  discipline.  These  doctrines  have  always  been  consi- 
dered as  fundamental,  and  promulgated  as  such  by  their 
approved  ministers.  Thev  were  so  reputed  when  the  wit- 
13* 


138 

ness  first  had  knowledge  of  the  society,  and  still  continue 
to  be  so.  These  books  are  circulated  now  by  the  society, 
as  containing  its  doctrines.  A  departure  from,  or  disbe- 
lief in  these  doctrines,  is  always  considered  by  the  socie- 
ty as  an  evidence  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith." 

The  court  will  perceive  from  the  testimony  of  this  wit- 
ness, that  these  works  have  been  published  from  time  to 
time,  by  the  society,  as  standard  works,  fully  explaining 
their  doctrines,  and  as  such  they  have  circulated  them. 
Can  we  then  have  better  evidence  of  their  doctrines  than 
these?  That  they  have  doctrines  which  they  consider  fun- 
damental and  essential,  their  discipline  fully  declares. 
Where  can  we  find  them  better  than  in  their  standard 
works  ;  their  declarations  of  faith,  written  by  the  venera- 
ble and  pious  fathers  of  their  church  to  whom  they  all 
look  up  as  high  authority.  It  is  impossible  then  that  there 
should  be  any  truth  in  the  idea  that  they  have  no  funda- 
mental doctrines ;  the  evidence  to  the  contrary  is  too  strong 
and  too  conclusive.  I  beg  leave  also  to  refer  the  court  to 
a  publication  made  by  the  society  of  Friends,  by  the  yearly 
meeting  of  Philadelphia,  to  be  found  in  4th  vol.  Mosheim 
Ecc.  Hist.  pp.  284-288.  It  is  proved  by  Samuel  Bettle, 
vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  71,  that  this  publication  w^as  made  under  the 
sanction  of  the  society.  It  is  called  '•  A  vindication  of  the 
Quakers"  and  holds  this  language,  viz.  "  We  believe  the 
scriptures  of  the  old  and  new  Testament  to  be  of  divine 
original,  and  give  full  credit  to  the  historical  facts  as  well 
as  the  doctrines  therein  delivered,  and  never  had  any 
doubt  of  the  truth  of  the  actual  birth,  life,  sufferings,  death, 
resuniection,  and  ascension  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  as  related  by  the  evangelist,  without  any  mental  or 
other  reserve,  or  the  least  diminution  by  allegorical  expla- 
nation ;  and  there  is  not,  nor  ever  has  been,  any  essential 
difference  in  faith  or  practice,  between  Friends  in  Europe 
and  America;  but  a  correspondence  is  regularly  main- 
tained, and  love,  harmony  and  unity,  have  been  preserved 
down  to  this  day,  and  we  hope  and  believe,  under  divine 
favour,  nothing  will  be  able  to  scatter  or  divide  us." 

In  the  same  book  is  a  publication  made  by  the  society 
of  Friends  in  New  England.  It  was  deemed  important 
that  the  misrepresentations  of  Friends  contained  in  Mo- 
sheim, should  be  corrected,  and  the  society  in  England 
having  adopted  this  course,  for  this  purpose,  it  was  also 
adopted  by  the  yearly  meetings  in  New  England  and  in 


139 

Philadelphia.  These  publications  all  took  place  before 
the  present  schism  arose  in  this  community.  I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  refer  the  court  to  all  the  standard  works,  which 
have  been  quoted  by  the  gentleman  associated  with  me : 
it  would  be  superfluous ;  but  from  the  evidence  which  we 
have  produced,  I  submit  to  the  court,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  ancient  Friends  and  of  the  society  down  to  the  present 
day,  is  fully  and  fairly  made  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  every 
candid  mind. 

I  shall,  in  the  next  (third)  place,  call  the  attention  of  the 
court,  upon  this  point,  to  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  of 
respectable  ministers,  men  who  are  perfectly  acquainted, 
with  all  the  principles  of  the  society,  from  their  youth  up- 
wards. The  first  witness  is  Samuel  Bettle.  If  there  is  any 
man  whose  station  entitled  him  to  a  knowledge  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  society  of  Friends,  it  is  this  witness.  He  has 
been  clerk  and  assistant  clerk  of  the  yearly  meeting,  for 
twenty  years.  The  witness  says,  Vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  58.  "  The 
society  have  avoided  the  term  trinity;  they  however  hold 
the  doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  stated 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  they  prefer  confining  their  state- 
ments of  views  in  relation  to  that  doctrine,  to  the  terms 
used  in  the  New  Testament.  They  have  avoided  the  use 
of  the  word  person  and  three  distinct  persons,  as  not  in  their 
apprehension  scriptural,  and  as  conveying,  in  their  appre- 
hension, an  idea  too  gross  for  so  sublime  and  spiritual  a 
subject.  I  have  always  understood  that  in  all  other  re- 
spects, the  society  hold  fully  the  doctrine  as  held  by  other 
protestant  sects  of  christians,  avoiding  the  term  person, 
being  the  only  difference  between  them  of  which  I  am 
aware  in  reference  to  this  particular  doctrine. 

"  The  society  of  Friends  do  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  and  have  always  so  believed.  They  be- 
lieve, and  what  they  understand  by  the  term  atonement  is, 
that  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  suffered  without 
the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  offering  himself  up  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  that  by  this 
ofl^ering,  through  faith,  repentance  and  obedience,  man 
may  become  purified  from  sin.  Their  creed  on  this  doc- 
trine is  in  the  words  of  the  New  Testament ;  they  take  it 
as  they  find  it.  Witness  uses  the  word  creed  here  as 
synonymous  with  belief.  It  is  believed  by  the  society  that 
in  no  other  way  than  by  the  atonement  of  our  Saviour 
can  man  be  purified  from  sin.    This  is  the  way  appointed 


140 

by  God,  that  is,  by  the  oflering  up  the  body  and  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  without  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  by  the  effi- 
cacy of  which,  tiirough  faith,  repentance,  and  obedience, 
remission  of  sins  is  received.  This  has  always  been 
fundamental  with  the  society. 

"  They  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  born  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary ;  agreeably  to  the  declaration  of  the  evangelist 
John,  in  substance,  that  "  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God ;" 
that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  or  took  flesh,  and  dwelt 
among  men ;  and  that  this  Word,  that  was  made  flesh, 
was  the  same  Jesus  that  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  miracu- 
Jously  conceived  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  for  the 
great  and  necessary,  and  holy  purposes  mentioned  in  the 
Kew  Testament,  indispensable  through  the  inscrutable 
counsels  of  God,  for  the  salvation  of  man.  This  is  also 
fundamental  and  always  has  been.  In  addition  to  what 
the  witness  has  said  above,  respecting  the  trinity,  he  now 
further  saith,  that  the  society  believe  and  hold,  and  always 
have  so  believed,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
are  one,  these  three  are  one ;  they  always  express  it  in 
that  way. 

"  The  society  also  believe  in  the  resurrection  and  as- 
cension of  the  body  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  as  it  is  clearly  expressed  and  taught  in  the  scrip- 
tures, corroborated  by  his  speaking  from  heaven  in  his 
glorified  state,  declaring  in  his  own  words,  "  J  am  Jesus 
of  Nazareth." 

"The  society  believe  that  .the  scriptures  were  given 
forth  by  holy  men  as  they  were  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  they  hav^e  always  received  them  as  the  out- 
ward test  and  rule  of  doctrine,  and  that  all  doctrines 
which  are  inconsistent  with  the  doctrines  of  the  scripture 
are  to  be  rejected.  Barclay  is  very  full  and  explicit  on 
this  subject,  and  "very  strong  language  he  uses.  These 
doctrines  are  the  ancient  doctrines  of  the  society,  and 
have  always  been  held  by  them  since  my  acquaintance 
with  them.  The  peculiar  views  of  the  society  expose 
them  to  much  objection,  sufl^ering  and  misrepresentation. 
When  speaking  of  their  peculiar  views,  the  witness  does 
not  mean  particularly  their  doctrines  above  mentioned  as 
diflTering  so  much  from  other  societies  of  christians,  but 
more  particularly  their  testimonies  against  wars,  oaths, 
and  in  relation  to  ministers,  and  other  things,  which  have 


141 

exposed  them  to  suffering  and  very  frequently  to  misre- 
presentation. Hence,  witness  believes,  that  no  religious 
society  whatever,  has  published  so  frequently,  and  so  fully, 
their  religious  doctrines  to  the  world,  as  the  society  of 
Friends,  and  this  has  arisen  out  of  the  peculiar  circum- 
stanCBs  in  which  they  were  placed,  as  I  have  mentioned." 
It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  go  through  all  the  evidence 
on  this  subject  I  will  therefore  only  refer  the  court  to 
the  passages,  viz.  William  Jackson,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  98,  99  ; 
Thomas  WiHis,  lb.  p.  108, 109 ;  Joseph  Whitall,  lb.  p.  213 ; 
Thomas  Evans,  lb.  p.  291  to  306. 

These  witnesses  express  fully  the  belief  of  the  society 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  holy  scriptures,  in  the  divinity 
and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity  substantially ;  though  they  do  not  make  use  of  the 
word  tririity  or  person,  they  take  the  scripture  language 
and  adopt  it  without  any  attempt  at  explanation  by  them. 
In  this  respect  I  think  they  have  been  wise.  It  is  impos- 
sible for  man  to  comprehend  this  solemn  and  mysterious 
subject.  It  is  above  human  comprehension.  We  know 
nothing  of  the  nature  of  God,  or  of  the  mode  of  his  ex- 
istence except  what  he  has  been  pleased  to  reveal.  He 
has  revealed  all  that  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  know,  and 
for  man  to  undertake  to  examine  into  the  nature  of  the 
Godhead  beyond  that,  is  presumptuous;  perhaps  even  the 
angels  in  heaven  do  not  understand  it.  It  is  beyond  the 
comprehension  of  finite  man.  This  attempt  to  define  the 
nature  of  the  trinity,  has  produced  more  controversy 
than  any  other  subject.  I  do  not  mean  as  to  the  fact  of 
the  existence  of  the  three,  but  as  to  the  manner  of  their 
existence  and  the  nature  of  their  connexion.  The  Friends 
therefore  reject  the  use  the  words  trinity  and  person. 
The  word  trinity,  I  believe  was  not  used  till  the  second 
century,  but  from  that  time  to  the  present,  controversies 
have  continually  arisen,  not  as  to  there  being  three,  or 
these  three  being  one,  but  as  to  the  mode  and  manner 
of  it. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  men  cannot  be  expected  to  en- 
tertain the  same  opinions  as  to  all  points  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion any  more  than  in  human  affairs  ;  but  they  must 
unite  in  all  the  essentials  of  the  religion  they  profess,  in 
order  to  worship  harmoniously.  They  cannot  exist  as  a 
religious  society,  they  cannot  unite  in  fellowship  and  com- 
munion, unless  they  agree  as  regards  all  the  leading  and 


142 

fundamental  principles  of  the  christian  religion.  It  is  suf- 
ficient, then,  for  us  to  show,  that  the  society  of  Friends  do 
believe,  and  always  have  believed,  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
three  that  bare  record  in  heaven  ;  in  the  divinity  and 
atonement  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  that  the  scriptures 
were  written  by  inspired  men;  that  those  who  penned 
them  were  guided  by  a  divine  influence,  and  that  they 
were  given  tor  our  instruction  and  correction.  They  hold 
these  doctrines  to  be  the  great  fundamentals  of  the  chris- 
tian religion,  and  I  believe  I  may  say  that  the  great  mass 
of  christians  so  believe  them;  for  although  some  sects  in 
modern  times  have  questioned  some  of  those  doctrines,  yet 
few,  very  few,  have  doubted  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred 
scriptures.  When,  therefore,  we  prove  by  witnesses,  as 
well  as  by  written  documents,  that  the  society  does  unite 
in  these  fundamental  principles,  we  must  take  them  as 
their  received  and  standard  doctrines,  the  test  by  which 
their  members  must  stand  or  full.  I  think  I  need  not 
dwell  longer  on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  I  have  now  a 
more  unpleasant  duty  to  perform  ;  to  show  that  these  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  christian  religion  are  rejected 
by  Elias  Hicks  and  his  adherents. 

I  shail  undertake  to  prove,  first,  from  the  testimony  of 
witnesses,  that  Elias  Hicks  denied  these  general  doctrines, 
not  only  in  conversation,  but  in  his  public  ministry,  in  the 
meetings  of  the  society.  He  denied  the  authenticity  and 
authority  of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  a  belief  in  the  doc- 
trines of  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  our  Saviour.  He 
divided  between  Jesus  and  Christ,  asserting  that  Jesus  was 
a  mere  man,  as  any  other  good  man,  and  that  Christ  was 
the  divine  spirit  by  which  he  was  actuated,  that  this  di- 
vine spirit  is  given  to  every  man  as  it  was  to  Jesus,  that 
Jesus  having  a  greater  work  to  perform,  had  five  talents 
committed  to  him,  that  is,  greater  gifts  of  the  spirit  than 
most  men,  but  that  he  had  no  more  than  just  what  was 
necessary  to  finish  his  work,  and  every  man  has  as  much 
as  he,  in  proportion  to  the  work  required;  he  admitted 
him  to  be  perfect,  but  still  held  that  he  was  only  a  fallible 
man. 

Upon  these  points  I  shall  refer  in  the  first  place  to  the 
testimony  of  William  Jackson,  vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  100,  Witness 
says:  "It  was  the  common  report,  that  EHas  Hicks  was 
in  unity  with,  and  accepted  by  the  Green  and  Cherry 
Street  meetings,  I  understood  it  so.     I  have  held  a  con- 


143 

versation  with  Elias  Hicks,  on  the  subject  of  the  divinity 
of  our  Saviour,  and   the  divine  origin  of  the  scriptures. 
The  conversation  arose  from  this  circumstance;  1  was  at 
a  meeting  in  New  York,  and  in  the  course  of  what  he 
said  there,  in  his  public  testimony,  in  a  pubhc  meeting  for 
worship,  he  uttered  such  sentiments  as  I  never  heard  from 
any  Friend  in  the  whole  course   of  my  hfe.     The  sub- 
stance of  it,  or  that  part  that  affected  me  most,  was  the 
manner  in  which  he  expressed  himself  with  respect  to  our 
Saviour,  bringing  him  down  to  the  level  of  a  man,  saying, 
that  "he  was  put  to  death  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men, 
and  suffered  as  a  martyr,  as  many  others  since  that  time 
had  done."     Never  having  heard   such  sentiments    deli- 
vered either  by  professor  or  profrmo,  I  thought  it  my  duty, 
as  a  brother,  to  go  to  his  house,  and  have  further  conver- 
sation with  him  on  the  subject;  accordingly  I  went  a  few 
days  after,  and  had  an  opportunity  with  him;  I  don't  re- 
collect that  there  were  any  persons  present  but  ourselves. 
I  let  him  know  my  uneasiness,  and  we  had  considerable 
discourse  on  the  subject.     I  cannot   now  pretend  to  re- 
member, so  as  to  relate  all  of  it,  but  so  far  he  went,  as  to 
assert,  that  there  was    as  much  scripture  testimony  to 
prove  that  he  was  no  more  than  the   son   of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  as  there  was  to  prov^e  to  the  contrary."    1  brought 
forward  the  testimonies  of  the  two  Evangelists,  Matthew 
and  Luke,  and  he  said  that  they  were  but  fables,  or  fabu- 
lous;" that  "they  were  no  more  than  fables."     I  was  ex- 
ceedingly astonished  at  him,  for,  as  I   said  before,  I  had 
never  heard  such  language  from  either  professor  or  pro- 
fane.    He  said  he  was  confident  of  what  he  said,  it  was  a 
thing  impossible,  spirit  only  could  beget  spirit,  it  could  not 
beget  material   matter.     I  said  some   things  in  objection, 
but  cannot  recollect  what  I  said.     In  the  course  of  the 
conversation,  he  further  said:  "It  is   believed   God  is  a 
Spirit,  Dost  thou  believe  it,  I   believe  it.     Spirit  can  only 
beget  spirit;"  and  repeated  it  several  times,  asserting  that 
he  was  as  confident  of  it,  as  that  he  was  standing  there, 
talking  with  me.     Then  I   said  to  him,  "Elias,  if  this  be 
thy  belief,  how  came  the  creation  of  the  world?"    His  an- 
swer to  my  question  was,  "What  of  the  creation?"     I 
said  to  him,  "  Why,  the  account  of  the  creation  we  have 
in  the  bible."     Then  he  replies  to  me,  "Why  that's  only 
Moses's  account."     Then  I  replied  to  him,  "  Is  it  not  a 
sufficient  account  for  us  to  believe  ?"     His  answer  to  that 


144 

was,  "ft  is  but  an  allegory;"  and  there  the  conversation 
ended." 

If  this  is  not  denying  the  holy  scriptures,  and  destroy- 
ing the  christian's  faith  in  them  ;  if  it  is  not  denying  the 
miraculous  conception  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  making  him  a 
mere  man,  I  know  not  what  is. 

I  refer  the  court  in  the  next  place  to  the  evidence  of 
Thomas  Willis,  vol.  I.  p.  109.  He  says,  "I  was  acquainted 
with  Elias  Hicks  from  my  youth  up,  embracing  a  period 
of  more  than  forty  years ;  he  was  a  member  of  the  same 
monthly  meeting  vi^ith  myself.  He  is  not  now  living,  was 
not  a  member  of  the  society  of  Friends  at  the  time  of  his 
death ;  he  had  been  disowned  by  them.  The  causes  of 
his  disownment  were,  a  departure  from  the  doctrines  and 
principles  of  the  society,  and  an  avowal  of  antichristian 
sentiments.  The  time  of  his  disownment  was  in  the  year 
1829,  in  fifth  month.  He  had  for  a  number  of  years  before 
his  disownment,  and  on  different  occasions,  uttered  senti- 
ments and  doctrines  that  gave  uneasiness  to  the  society. 
I  have  a  copy  of  the  minute  of  his  disownment,  which  is 
taken  from  tlie  minutes  of  the  monthly  meeting  to  which 
he  belonged,  being  the  monthly  meeting  of  Westbury  and 
Jericho.  For  some  time  before  his  disownment,  for  a  num- 
ber of  years,  he  had  been  frequently,  and  at  various  times, 
privately  admonished  by  different  individuals  on  the  sub- 
ject of  his  departure.  In  regard  to  myself,  in  former 
years,  I  esteemed  him  highly  as  a  minister,  and  a  useful 
member  of  society,  and  although  I  sometimes  heard  ex- 
pressions and  some  sentiments  avowed  by  him,  with  which 
I  could  not  unite,  yet  from  the  esteem  I  always  had  for 
him,  and  the  confidence  which  I  had  placed  in  him,  I  was 
very  loath  to  believe  a  w-ant  of  integrity,  and  soundness 
on  his  part,  until  about  the  years  1818  and  20.  When  ob- 
serving that  he  had  embraced  and  began  to  promulgate 
some  views,  that  were  not  in  accordance  with  the  doc- 
trines of  our  society,  I  became  seriously  uneasy,  and  en- 
deavoured to  discharge  my  duty  towards  him  accordingly. 
In  consequence  of  this  uneasiness  I  waited  on  him.  The 
interview  resulted  rather  in  the  confirmation  of  my  unea- 
siness. In  general,  I  perceived  his  view  and  belief  of  the 
scriptures  to  be  not  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of 
our  society,  placing  them  on  the  same  ground  as  any  other 
history,  exciting  doubts  of  some  important  truths  declared 
in  them,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  divine  character  and 


145 

holy  offices  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  his  miraculous  con- 
ception, the  efficacy  of  his  sufferings  and  death  as  a  pro- 
pitiatory offering  for  the  sins  of  mankind,  his  intercession 
and  mediation  as  our  Advotiate  with  the  Father.  These 
were  the  principal  points  of  doctrine.  In  relation  to  the 
character  of  our  blessed  Lord,  he  has  placed  him  on  the 
same  ground  as  other  men.  I  have  heard  him  testify  in 
public  meetings,  that  "  Jesus  assumed  nothing  more  to  him- 
self than  other  prophets  did,  that  he  was  very  careful  not 
to  do  it,  saving  in  a  few  instances  calling  himself  the  Son 
of  God,  that  as  he  steadily  kept  in  view  his  entire  dependent 
state,  he  never  called  the  people  to  himself,  but  only  di- 
rected ihem  to  the  Spirit  of  Truth  in  their  own  minds; 
and  that  this  is  all  we  want,  for  when  we  once  come  to 
believe  in  this,  then  instrumental  helps  have  done  all  they 
can  do  for  us,  their  usefulness  is  very  soon  at  an  end  with 
the  true  christian,  he  is  brought  to  the  foundation,  he  needs 
them  no  more ;  although  we  value  the  scriptures  which  are 
written  and  bound  up  in  the  book  we  call  the  bible,  as  well 
as  other  scriptures  written  by  other  wise  and  good  men, 
yet  the  scriptures  do  not  properly  belong  to  any,  but  those 
to  whoin  they  were  written ;  they  are  so  far  from  being 
any  rule  to  the  true  christian,  that  they  are  inconsistent 
and  contradictory  to  themselves,  and  there  is  not  an  agree- 
ment in  them  in  any  general  way."  Similar  views  of  the 
scriptures  have  also  been  promulgated  by  him  in  conver- 
sation and  by  writing,  and  he  has  acknowledged  his  de- 
parture from  the  belief  of  the  society  respecting  them,  by 
saying,  that  his  conscience  had  often  smitten  him  when 
he  had  been  endeavouring  to  hold  up  the  belief  of  the 
society  of  Friends  respecting  them,  in  setting  them  so  far 
above  other  books.  He  has  represented  them  as  being  the 
principal  cause  of  the  apostacy  in  the  primitive  churchy 
and  that  they  were  not  useful  in  bringing  about  the  re- 
formation, and  in  fine  that  they  have  been  the  cause  of 
fourfold  more  harm  than  good  to  Christendom  since  the 
apostle's  days.  These  and  similar  views  respecting  the 
scriptures,  being  promulgated  by  him,  were,  among 
others,  introduced  into  my  own  family,  by  letters  directed 
to  my  wife,  which  I  have  now  with  me,  in  his  own  hand 
writing." 

Again  in  p.  HI:  "These  sentiments  which  had  been 
thus  propagated  by  Elias  Hicks  in  his  public  discourses, 
in  his  letters  and  conversations,  were  in  violation  of  what 
14 


146 

has  always  been  held  to  be  fundamental  upon  those  points, 
by  the  society  of  Friends.  I  have  a  recollection  of  his 
expressions  on  those  subjects,  on  various  occasions.  I 
have  heard  him  declare  in  public,  when  speaking  on  the 
character  and  constitution  of  our  Saviour,  and  in  allusion 
to  his  miraculous  conception,  "  that  flesh  must  unite  with 
flesh  to  make  a  being,  but  flesh  and  spirit  never  can  unite." 
"  God  can  create,  but  he  cannot  beget."  "  The  Son  must 
be  of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father."  I  have  also  fre- 
quently heard  him  express  his  views  on  the  subject  of  the 
atonement.  In  relation  to  the  sufferings  or  ofl'ering  of 
Christ,  he  said  that  he  could  not  believe  that  it  was  an  of- 
fering designed  by  the  Father,  but  that  circumstances  led 
to  it  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had  done  in  the  case  of 
many  other  martyrs.  I  have  heard  him  use  similar  ex- 
pressions many  different  times.  He  continued  to  promul- 
gate these  sentiments  in  his  public  ministry  up  to  the  time 
of  his  disownment,  and  was  disowned  for  that  cause.  He 
was  a  man  to  whom  society  generally  was  very  much 
attached  in  former  years,  whereby  he  gained  great  influ- 
ence in  the  society.  I  believe  his  popularity  as  a  preacher 
was  owing  in  a  considerable  measure  to  the  boldness  of 
his  conceptions,  and  originality  of  thought.  Although  he 
was  not  disowned  for  his  unsoundness  until  lately,  yet  his 
departure  from  our  principles  was  a  subject  of  general 
conversation  and  remark  in  the  society  for  several  years. 
He  had  been  the  subject  of  admonition  and  care,  on  the 
part  of  some  of  the  elders  of  his  own  meeting,  for  a  long 
time  before  his  disownment,  but  most  of  the  eiders  of  his 
own  meeting,  were  his  adherents.  This  departure  of  his, 
was  extensively  spread  through  the  society,  and  it  was  a 
subject  of  general  remark  and  conversation  in  other 
yearly  meetings,  beside  that  to  which  he  belonged." 

Ishall  next  refer  the  court  to  the  testimony  of  Samuel 
Parsons,  Vol.  I.  Ev.  p.  173.  He  says,  "The  unsound 
opinions  and  doctrines  promulgated  by  Ellas  Hicks,  and 
for  which  he  was  disowned,  were  generally  in  relation  to 
the  holy  scriptures  and  the  character  of  the  Saviour.  In 
relation  to  the  character  of  the  Saviour,  I  have  heard  him 
express  in  his  public  communications,  the  following  senti- 
ments: "The  people  must  be  totally  turned  from  any  at- 
tention to  the  outward  manifestation  or  sufferings  of  Jesus, 
the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  the  design  of  whose  coming  was 
to  put  an  end  to  the  law  of  Moses  and  its  ordinances. 


147 

He  was  an  Israelite,  and  was  not  furnished  with  any 
more  ability  than  the  other  Israelites."  "Jesus  never  gave 
himself  a  higher  character  than  the  son  of  man."  "  There 
is  no  mediator  betwixt  God  and  man:  it  would  be  unrea- 
sonable to  believe  that  he  had  ever  directed  one  Son  of 
God  to  reveal  his  will  to  all  the  other  sons  of  God." 
"Jesus  was  the  first  Son  of  God;  mentioning  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  species  of  idolatry."  "  We  can  aH 
attain  to  the  same  state  that  Jesus  did,  to  be  equal  with 
God,  as  the  sons  of  a  family  are  equal  with  the  father 
who  takes  counsel  with  them.  It  was  never  designed  nor 
intended  that  he  should  suffer  death  by  men,  for  what 
man  would  be  saved  by  the  blood  of  an  innocent  brother!" 
"  With  regard  to  the  Almighty's  speaking  by  his  Son, 
what  kind  of  a  father,  would  that  be,  that  would  speak  to 
his  children  by  his  eldest  son,  instead  of  speaking  directly 
to  them."  "  He  was  inferior,  seeing  there  could  be  but 
one  that  had  no  beginning,  .and  that  was  the  Almighty," 
"  With  regard  to  the  miracles  which  he  wrought,  it  was 
the  weakest  evidence  which  could  be  afforded,  only  suit- 
ed to  that  low  dispensation,  and  was  no  evidence  to  us; 
if  there  would  be  any  use  in  it,  men  might  work  miracles 
now." 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  holy  scriptures  he  said,  "  The 
scriptures  say,  one  one  thing,  and  one  another,  and  it  can- 
not be  ascertained  from  them,  whether  Jesus  was  the  son 
of  Joseph  or  not;"  "  there  were  thirty  gospels  written,  and 
these  we  have  left,  were  selected  in  the  dark  night  of 
apostacy."  "  The  scriptures  may  be,  and  no  doubt  are, 
in  the  early  part  of  a  religious  life,  yet  as  pointing  to  some- 
thing better;  they  are  of  no  use  when  an  advanced  state 
is  attained  to.  Amidst  much  good,  there  is  a  great  deal 
that  is  otherwise;  the  narratives  of  the  evangelists  are  full 
of  inconsistencies  with  each  other ;  it  had  been  better  if 
there  had  been  only  one,  and  then  it  could  not,  at  least, 
have  been  charged  with  inconsistency ;  there  was  but  one 
copy  formerly  extant,  which  the  Pope  got  and  modelled  to 
his  mind."  "  There  is  no  reliance  to  be  placed  on  books 
or  men,  all  outward  means  are  to  be  rejected,  and  all  ex- 
ternal miracles  had  no  effect  in  promoting  the  gospel." 
These  sentiments  were  publicly  expressed  by  him  in  the 
meetings  of  the  society,  and  for  persevering  in  preaching 
and  teaching  them,  he  was  disowned.  After  his  disown- 
ment  he  was  generally  reputed  to  be  in  full  unity  with  the 


148 

meeting  in  Green  street,  and  that  spoken  of  in  New  York, 
in  correspondence  with  it,  and  was  an  accepted  minister 
with  them  ;  it  is  well  understood  to  be  the  case." 

I  refer  also  to  pages  J42,  143.  150.  160,  161.  of  the 
same  evidence ;  to  the  evidence  of  Joseph  Whitall,  lb.  pp. 
214,215.  This  witness  is  very  explicit ;  he  says,  "For 
several  years  previous  to  1822,  I  had  no  opportunity  of 
hearing  him  [Elias  Hicks]  publicly.  But  at  the  time  of 
the  yearly  meeting  in  that  year,  in  a  public  meeting  on 
first  day  immediately  preceding  the  yearly  meeting  at 
New  York,  he  uttered  these  remarkable  words,  "  that  the 
same  power  which  made  Christ  a  christian,  must  make 
us  christians,  and  the  same  power  that  saved  him  must 
save  us."  I  never  before  had  heard  such  sentiments  ad- 
vanced by  any  minister  in  our  society,  and  believing  that 
it  was  a  clear  denial  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  I  felt  it  my 
religious  duty  to  take  a  private  opportunity  with  him  at 
his  lodgings.  1  informed  him  that  I  had  entertained  a 
high  regard  for  him  from  the  first  of  our  acquaintance  to 
the  present  time ;  and  withal,  informed  him  of  the  great 
uneasiness  he  had  given  me  in  his  public  communications 
by  bringing  Christ  down  to  the  level  of  a  mere  man.  He 
replied  that  "  it  was  a  matter  of  the  greatest  encourage- 
ment to  him,  to  believe  that  Christ  was  no  more  than  a 
man,  for  if  he  were  any  thing  more,  it  would  destroy  the 
effect  of  his  example,  to  him."  I  repeated  to  him  the  text, 
that "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,"  as 
is  stated  in  John.  He  said,  "  it  was  impossible."  In  the 
course  of  the  conversation  with  him,  he  further  said,  "that 
it  was  an  abomination  to  pray  to  Jesus  Christ,"  As  re- 
garded the  scriptures  he  said,  "  they  were  the  cause  of 
more  bloodshed  and  confusion,  than  any  other  thing;  and 
that  it  was  a  pity  the  epistles  had  ever  been  handed  down 
to  us."  In  the  course  of  the  conversation,  he  asked  me  if 
I  had  ever  seen  a  pamphlet  called  the  '  Celestial  magnet.' 
I  told  him,  that  I  had  seen  one  number  to  my  great  dissa- 
tisfaction, as  the  author  attempted  to  show  or  prove  that 
Christ  was  the  illegitimate  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  He 
said,  "  not  the  illegitimate,  but  the  legitimate  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary."  I  told  him  1  thought  I  could  not  be  mistaken, 
for  I  had  read  it  but  a  few  weeks  before.  He  then  went 
into  an  argument  of  considerable  length,  as  I  understood 
it,  that  Christ  was  the  son  of  Joseph.  He  said  that  "  he 
had  believed  the  account  trsiditionallv,  as  contained  in  th§ 


149 

scriptures,  concerning  the  miraculous  conception,  but  on 
further  examination  of  the  evangelists,  there  was  in  them, 
greater  proof  than  otherwise,  of  his  being  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph." I  have  omitted  one  part  that  ought  to  have  come 
in  before,  respecting  Christ,  one  assertion  he  made,  he  said, 
"  it  was  his  belief  that  Christ  was  hable  to  fall  like  other 
men."  During  that  opportunity  he  also  declared  that  "  as 
it  was  lawful  and  right  for  George  Fox,  in  his  day,  to  dif- 
fer in  sentiment  from  the  prevailing  doctrines  of  the  age, 
and  to  make  advances  in  the  reformation,  so  it  was  right 
for  him,  meaning  himself,  Elias  Hicks,  to  make  further 
advances."  In  objecting  to  the  propriety  of  his  promul- 
gating such  opinions  in  the  meeting  of  Friends,  and  im- 
posing them  as  the  doctrines  of  our  society,  I  expressed 
my  belief  that  "  if  he  persisted  to  do  so,  it  would  produce 
in  our  society  the  greatest  schism  that  had  ever  hap- 
pened;" he  admitted  it  would  produce  a  schism,  but  said, 
"it  would  be  of  short  duration,  for  his  doctrines  must  and 
■would  prevail."  I  laboured  with  him  in  great  tenderness, 
to  re-examine  the  grounds  he  had  taken,  to  which  he  re- 
plied, he  would.  After  the  yearly  meeting  closed,  still 
feeling  my  mind  very  uneasy  on  his  account,  I  went  again 
to  his  lodgings,  and  proposed  to  him,  to  have  a  few  judi- 
cious friends  invited  to  come  together,  to  discuss  those  im- 
portant subjects  that  we  had  conversed  about,  for  it  was 
one  in  which  the  happiness  and  welfare  of  the  society,  not 
only  there,  but  everywhere,  was  involved.  He  said,  "  It 
was  in  vain  to  reason  with  him  on  the  subject,  for  his  mind 
was  so  made  up,  that  he  was  determined  to  persevere,  let 
the  consequences  be  what  they  might." 

"  In  the  first  month,  1823,  he  was  at  Woodbury,  it  was 
on  the  15th  day  of  the  month.  I  thought  it  proper  for  me 
then  to  take  another  opportunity  with  him,  relative  to  a 
communication  in  writing,  which  he  had  sent  to  a  num- 
ber of  the  elders  in  Philadelphia,  in  which  he  had  made 
some  misstatement  of  my  words;  in  this  letter  he  charged 
me  with  acting  unfriendly,  contrary  to  discipline,  and  put- 
ting an  improper  or  false  construction  upon  his  words. 
(I  give  the  substance,  but  I  do  not  pretend  to  give  the 
words  verbatim.)  I  let  him  know  that  I  did  not  consider 
it  unfriendly,  or  contrary  to  discipline,  to  make  a  state- 
ment of  the  doctrines  he  published,  as  I  considered  it  as  a 
species  of  public  property.  He  said,  he  did  not  consider 
that  it  was  an  occasion  of  offence,  for  what  he  preached 
14* 


150 

publicly  he  would  stand  by.  He  then  referred  to  some 
remarks  he  had  made  in  conversation,  and  thought  that 
unkind,  as  he  considered  it  a  confidential  conversation.  I 
told  him  I  did  not  consider  it  so,  neither  had  he  requested 
it,  and  I  think  held  up  to  him  the  inconsistency  of  wishing 
me  to  be  silent  on  doctrines  he  was  spreading  both  pub- 
licly and  privately.  He  then  gave  up  the  point  entirely, 
as  acting  towards  him  unfriendly,  or  contrary  to  disci- 
pHne,  when  I  reminded  him  of  what  had  passed  at  New 
York.  I  then  wanted  to  know  wherein  I  had  wrested  his 
words,  or  put  an  improper  construction  upon  them.  He 
took  out  of  his  pocket  a  letter  addressed  to  him  by  some 
of  the  elders  of  Philadelphia,  and  pointed  to  one  paragraph, 
which  they  informed  him  I  had  asserted  as  what  he  had 
declared  as  his  doctrines.  It  was  the  declaration  I  heard 
him  make  at  New  York,  that  Christ  was  no  more  than  a 
man,  &c.  He  remarked,  that  I  ought  to  have  stated  as 
his  words,  that  "  Christ  was  no  more  than  an  Israelite,"  and 
that  with  that  he  would  have  been  satisfied.  I  informed 
him,  it  was  my  decided  belief,  that  I  had  repeated  the 
words  verbatim,  having  made  a  memorandum  of  them 
shortly  after.  He  then  stated,  that  "Christ  was  like  the 
other  Israelites,  and  differed  from  them  in  fulfilling  the  law, 
having  had  a  sufficient  portion  of  the  Spirit  so  to  do,  as 
every  other  Israelite  had.  He  considered  "  that  Christ 
was  like  a  son  who  was  dutiful  and  faithful  in  all  things  to 
his  father,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  intrusted  with  the 
keys  of  his  treasury."  Unformed  him  that  I  did  fully  be- 
lieve his  views  throughout,  on  the  points  we  had  discussed, 
were  at  variance  with  the  scriptures  of  truth,  and  the  doc- 
trines of  ancient  Friends;  and  that  we,  as  a  religious  body, 
Tiad  published  to  the  world,  that  we  were  willing  that  our 
doctrines  and  practices  should  be  tested  by  the  scriptures 
of  truth.  He  said,  "  he  was  not  willing  that  his  doctrines 
should  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  or  the  writings  of  ancient 
Friends;  and  that  he  believed  George  Fox,  William  Penn 
and  Robert  Barclay  thought  as  he  did,  but  they  were  afraid 
to  come  out" 

It  appears  to  me  impossible  that  this  witness  should  be 
mistaken.  It  was  no  accidental  or  transient  conversation 
that  he  had  with  Mr.  Hicks,  but  one  sought  for  the  very 
purpose  of  speaking  with  him,  relative  to  his  doctrines, 
and  to  the  uneasiness  which  they  excited.  Mr.  Hicks 
enters  iato  an  argument  to  prove  that  his  doctrines  are 


151 

right,  and  expresses  a  determination  to  persist  in  the  pro- 
mulgation of  them,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they 
might.  He  admitted  that  it  would  pYoduce  a  schism,  but 
it  would  be  of  short  duration;  and  subsequently,  when  the 
witness  stated  to  him  the  disagreement  between  his  views 
and  those  of  the  founders  of  the  society,  he  expressly  says, 
that  he  is  not  willing  his  doctrines  should  be  tried  by  the 
scriptures,  or  the  writings  of  ancient  Friends.  Here  is  a 
distinct  admission,  that  he  differs  from  the  fathers  of  the 
church,  from  the  primitive  Friends ;  that  he  was  holding 
out  new  lights,  and  setting  up  for  a  new  guide ;  that  he 
was  better  qualified  to  instruct  in  his  day,  than  Fox  and 
Barclay  were  in  theirs,  and  that  although  he  knew  his  con- 
duct would  produce  a  schism,  yet  he  was  determined  to 
persist  in  it,  though  he  saw  it  must  rend  the  society  in 
sunder. 

Without  detaining  the  court  with  reading  more  of  the 
testimony,  I  think  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks  are  fully 
made  out  by  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses.  But  we 
have  not  to  rely  on  the  testimony  of  witnesses  only,  we 
have  his  own  letters,  under  his  own  hand,  in  which  he 
states  his  doctrinal  views  distinctly;  there  are  several  of 
these  letters,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  their  mean- 
ing. The  first  of  these  to  which  I  shall  call  the  attention 
of  the  court,  is  from  Elias  Hicks  to  Phebe  Willis,  dated 
the  19th  of  fifth  month,  1818.  Vol.  II.  Ev.  p.  416.  In  this 
letter  he  says,  "  But  having  for  a  considerable  time  past, 
found  from  full  conviction,  that  there  is  scarcely  any 
thing  so  baneful  to  the  present  and  future  happiness  and 
welfare  of  mankind,  as  a  submission  to  tradition  and  pop- 
ular opinion,  I  have  therefore  been  led  to  see  the  necessi- 
ty of  investigating  for  myself,  all  customs  and  doctrines, 
whether  of  a  moral  or  of  a  religious  nature,  either  ver- 
bally, or  historically  communicated,  by  the  best  and 
greatest  of  men,  or  angels,  and  not  to  set  down  satisfied 
with  any  thing  but  the  plain,  clear,  demonstrative  testi- 
mony of  the  spirit  and  word  of  life  and  light,  in  my  own 
heart  and  conscience,  and  which  has  led  me  to  see  how 
very  far  all  the  professors  of  Christianity  are  from  the  real 
spirit,  and  substance  of  the  gospel;  and  among  other  sub- 
jects, I  have  been  led,  I  trust  carefully  and  candidly,  to 
investigate  the  effects  produced  by  the  book  called  the 
scriptures,  since  it  has  borne  that  appellation,  and  it  ap- 
pears from  a  comparative  view,  to  have  been  the  cause  of 


152 

fourfold  more  harm  than  good  to  Christendom,  since  the 
apostles'  days,  and  which  I  think  must  be  indubitably  plain 
to  every  faithful  honest  mind,  that  has  investigated  her 
history,  free  from  the  undue  bias  of  education,  and  tra- 
dition." 

"  To  the  family  of  Abraham  he  dispensed  a  very  pecu- 
liar system  of  rituals  and  outward  shadoM^s,  to  which  he 
required  obedience,  in  order  to  bring  them  back  to  a  sub- 
mission to  his  will,  as  manifested  by  his  spirit  in  their 
hearts,  but  he  dispensed  them  to  no  other  people  but  to 
Israel,  and  those  that  came  of  their  own  accord  and  join- 
ed them,  and  as  soon  as  the  effect  was  produced,  by 
bringing  them  back  to  their  inward  guide,  all  those  out- 
ward means  became  obsolete,  and  useless.  So  likewise 
he  made  use  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his 
apostles,  for  the  same  end,  to  turn  from  darkness  to  the 
inward  light,  and  when  that  was  effected,  their  ministry 
had  done  all  it  could  do,  and  to  such,  as  they  continued  to 
walk  in  the  light,  their  doctrine  became  obsolete  and  use- 
less; and  so  in  every  age,  where  any  real  reformation 
has  been  produced,  it  has  always  been  by  instruments 
newly  raised  up,  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  spirit. 
And  where  any  people  have  depended  upon  what  has 
been  written  to  former  generations,  such  make  no  ad- 
vancement, but  just  sit  down  in  the  labours  of  their  fore- 
fathers, and  soon  become  dry  and  formal,  and  fall  behind 
those  they  are  copying  after,  or  propose  to  follow." 

"  And  how  much  more  reasonable  it  is  to  suppose,  that 
an  inspired  teacher  in  the  present  day,  should  be  led  to 
speak  more  truly  and  plainly  to  the  states  of  the  people  to 
whom  he  is  led  to  communicate,  than  any  doctrines  that 
were  delivered  seventeen  hundred  years  ago,  to  a  people 
very  differently  circumstanced  to  those  in  this  day,  1  leave 
to  any  rational  mind  to  judge.  And  that  the  doctrines  of 
George  Fox  and  our  primitive  Friends  should  be  easier 
to  understand,  and  plainer,  being  written  in  our  own  lan- 
guage, than  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  christians,  ap- 
pears very  reasonable,  but  we  are  all  or  have  been  so 
bound  down  by  tradition,  being  taught  from  the  cradle  to 
venerate  the  scriptures,  and  people  generally  considering 
them  so  sacred  as  not  to  be  investigated,  but  bound  to  re- 
ceive them  as  we  have  been  taught;  hence  we  have  all 
been  more  or  less  dupes  to  tradition  and  error.  I  well  re- 
member how  oft  my  conscience  has  smote  me  when  I 


153 

have  been  endeavouring  to  support  the  society's  belief  of 
the  scriptures,  that  they  so  very  far  excelled  all  other 
writings,  that  the  fear  of  man  had  too  great  a  share  in 
leading  me  to  adopt  the  sentiment,  and  custom  rendered 
it  more  easy,  but  I  never  was  clear  in  my  own  mind  as  to 
that  point,  and  had  I  carefully  attended  to  my  own  feel- 
ings I  should  have  been  preserved  I  believe  in  a  line  of 
more  consistency,  in  that  respect." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  in  this  letter  Elias  Hicks  de- 
clares that  the  holy  scriptures  have  been  productive  of 
fourfold  more  harm  than  good ;  that  to  those  who  turn  to 
the  inward  light  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles is  obsolete  and  useless;  that  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  inspired  teachers  of  the  present  day  would  be 
led  to  speak  more  truly  and  plainly  to  the  states  of  the 
people  than  any  doctrines  delivered  seventeen  hundred 
years  ago.  And  moreover  that  his  conscience  has  often  . 
smitten  him  when  he  has  been  endeavouring  to  support 
the  behef  of  the  society  of  Friends,  that  the  scriptures  so 
much  excelled  all  other  writings.  Holding  such  sentiments 
as  these,  could  Elias  Hicks,  I  would  ask,  believe  thr.t  they 
were  written  by  inspired  men,  or  that  they  were  given  for 
our  guide  and  instruction?  He  seems  to  have  believed 
and  esteemed  them  in  his  youth,  but  when  he  unhappily 
became  a  convert  to  these  new  doctrines,  doctrines  so  ad- 
verse to  the  whole  testimony  of  the  bible,  then  he  rejected 
and  undervalued  them.  What  standard  of  faith  then  does 
he  leave  for  christians?  what  rule  for  their  guide,  what 
test  for  doctrines  ?  What  becomes  of  those  precious  and 
consoling  hopes  that  we  derive  from  that  sacred- volume. 

There  is  another  letter  to  Phebe  Willis,  dated  23rd  of 
ninth  month,  to  which  I  will  now  refer  the  court.  It  is  to 
be  found  in  vol.  II.  Ev.  p. 419.  In  this  letter  he  says,  "The 
next  thing  I  would  observe  is,  that  I  have  said  that  it 
would  be  better  that  they  were  entirely  annihilated,  but 
this  is  not  the  case,  as  I  have  never  said  it,  as  I  remem- 
ber, except  I  might  when  in  pleasant  conversation  with 
my  particular  friends,  who  are  in  full  unity,  and  knew  how 
to  understand  me,  I  might  have  said,  that  I  did  not  know 
but  it  might  be  as  well  that  they  were  entirely  done  away, 
but  never  expressed  as  my  settled  belief,  but  1  may  add 
that  I  sometimes  think  that  if  they  were  really  needful  and 
useful  to  a  few  who  make  a  right  use  of  them,  yet  as  I  be- 
lieve they  are  doing  great  harm  to  multitudes  of  others,, 


154 

"whether  it  would  not  be  better  for  the  few  who  find  some 
comfort  and  help  from  them  to  give  them  up  for  a  time 
until  the  wrong  use  and  abuse  of  them  are  done  away,  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  a  moral  relation  it  might  be  better 
for  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  if  distillation  and  the 
means  of  making  spirituous  liquors  was  for  a  time  given 
up  and  done  away,  until  the  wrong  use  and  abuse  of  it  was 
done  away  and  forgotten,  although  it  might  deprive  some 
of  the  benefit  of  it  who' use  those  articles  only  to  their  com- 
fort and  help,  for  if  after  a  time  it  might  be  thought  right 
to  renew  the  making  it,  when  the  intemperate  use  and 
abuse  was  done  away,  it  would  be  a  very  easy  thing  for 
man  to  make  it  again.  Just  so  in  respect  to  the  scriptures, 
it  would  be  a  very  easy  thing  for  divine  wisdom  and  good- 
ness to  raise  up  and  qualify  some  of  his  faithful  servants 
to  write  scriptures  if  he  should  think  best,  as  good  and  as 
competent  for  the  generation  in  which  they  lived,  and  like- 
ly would  be  much  better  than  those  who  wrote  so  many 
hundred  years  since,  for  would  not  some  of  us  be  very 
glad  if  we  could  have  immediate  access  to  Paul,  and  some 
other  of  the  apostles,  who  contradict  one  another  and 
sometimes  themselves,  by  which  means  we  might  be  in- 
formed of  the  true  meaning  of  what  they  have  wrote,  and 
cause  us  all  to  understand  them  alike." 

"  I  shall  notice  one  thing  more  in  thy  letter,  that  re- 
specting the  atonement;  and  as  time  will  not  admit  me  to 
write  much  more,  I  shall,  in  a  short  way,  give  thee  my 
view  on  the  subject :  and  first,  I  may  say,  that  our  primi- 
tive Friends  stopt  short  in  that  matter,  not  for  want  of 
faithfulness,  but  because  the  day  that  was  in  some  re- 
spects still  dark,  would  not  admit  of  further  openings,  be- 
cause the  people  could  not  bear  it,  therefore  it  was  to  be  a 
future  work.  But  to  suppose,  in  this  day  of  advanced 
light,  that  the  offering  of  the  outward  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
should  purge  away  spiritual  corruption,  is  entirely  incon- 
sistent with  the  nature  and  reason  of  things,  as  flesh  and 
spirit  bear  no  analogy  with  each  other,  and  it  contradicts 
our  Lord's  own  doctrines,  where  he  assured  the  people 
that  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing;  and  many  other  of  his  say- 
ings it  contradicts.  And  I  believe  nothing  ever  did,  or 
ever  will,  atone  for  spiritual  corruption,  but  the  entire 
death  of  that  from  whence  that  corruption  originated, 
which  is  the  corrupt  will,  and  the  life  that  the  creature  has 
generated  in  him  by  that  will,  both  which  must  he  slain 


155 

by  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  stands  in  the  way  to 
Eden,  and  must  die  and  be  annihilated  on  the  cross;  and 
that  is  the  true  atonement  which  the  creature  cannot  ef* 
feet  for  himself,  only  as  he  submits  to  the  operation  of  the 
life  and  spirit  of  Christ,  which  will  enable  the  willing  and 
obedient  to  do  it;  and  the  outward  atonement  was  a  figure 
of  it,  which  with  the  outward  example  of  Jesus  Christ,  in 
his  righteous  works  and  pious  death,  gives  strength  to  the 
faithful  to  make  this  necessary  oflfering  and  sacrifice  unto, 
by  which  his  sins  is  blotted,  and  he  again  reconciled  to  his 
maker." 

It  is  apparent,  I  think,  from  the  tenor  of  this  letter,  that 
Elias  Hicks  entirely  rejected  the  holy  scriptures.  He  ad- 
mits that  he  may  have  said  to  his  friends  that  he  did  not 
know  but  it  would  be  as  well  that  they  were  entirely  done 
away,  asserts  that  they  are  doing  great  harm  to  multi-* 
tudes,  and  even  descends  to  a  degrading  comparison  of 
them  with  spirituous  liquors ;  he  also  holds  out  the  idea, 
that  if  they  were  entirely  destroyed,  it  is  most  likely  if  any 
scriptures  at  all  should  afterwards  be  necessary,  persons 
would  be  qualified  to  write  such  as  would  be  much  better 
than  those  penned  so  many  hundred  years  ago.  It  would 
seem  that  he  was  vain  and  simple  enough  to  imagine  that 
he  could  write  better  scriptures  than  Peter  or  any  other 
of  the  apostles. 

We  have  another  letter  addressed  to  Thomas  Willis, 
dated  tenth  month,  1821.  It  is  to  be  found  in  vol.  II.  Ev. 
p.  421,  and  contains  the  following  expressions.  "Thine 
of  the  27th  instant  I  have  duly  considered,  and  although, 
like  thyself,  1  was  brought  up  and  educated  in  the  histori- 
cal and  traditional  belief  that  the  conception  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  in  the  womb  of  Mary  his  mother,  was  effected 
by  the  power  of  God,  and  this  has  been  my  belief  as  far 
as  history  could  produce  a  belief,  for  more  than  fifty  years ; 
and  although  1  read  or  have  heard  the  scriptures  read,  many 
times  over,  yet  as  I  read  them,  or  heard  them  read,  under 
the  prejudice  of  a  traditional  belief,  I  never  observed  any 
thing  that  appeared  to  militate  against  it;  but  having  in 
the  compass  of  a  few  years  past,  been  led  into  an  exami- 
nation of  the  ancient  history  of  the  professed  christian 
church,  wherein  I  discovered,  that  many  who  made  pro- 
fession of  the  christian  name,  believed  otherwise,  and  these 
at  times  stood  foremost  in  esteem." 

"  Now,  in  his  creed,  [the  Bishop  of  Rome]  to  which  he 


/ 


156 

made  all  the  nations  of  Europe  bow,  by  the  dint  of  the 
sword,  was  this  of  the  miraculous  birth ;  therefore,  all  chil- 
dren, for  several  hundred  years,  were  brought  up  and 
educated  in  this  belief,  without  any  examination  in  regard 
to  its  correctness. 

"  Finding  this  to  be  the  case,  I  examined  the  accounts 
given  on  this  subject  by  the  four  Evangelists,  and  accord- 
ing to  my  best  judgment  on  the  occasion,  I  was  led  to 
think  there  was  considerable  more  scripture  evidence  for 
his  being  the  son  of  Joseph  than  otherwise ;  although  it  has 
not  yet  changed  my  belief,  are  the  consequences  which  fol- 
low much  more  favourable ;  for  as  the  Israelitish  covenant 
rested  very  much  upon  external  evidence,  by  way  of  out- 
ward miracle,  so  I  conceive  this  miraculous  birth  was  in- 
tended principally  to  induce  the  Israelites  to  believe  he 
was  their  promised  Messiah,  or  the  great  prophet,  Moses 
had  long  before  prophesied  of  that  should  come,  like  unto 
himself.  But,  when  we  consider  that  he  was  born  of  a 
woman  that  was  joined  in  lawful  wedlock  with  a  man  of 
Israel,  it  would  seem  that  it  must  shut  the  way  to  the  en- 
forcing of  any  such  belief,  as  all  their  neighbours  would 
naturally  be  led  to  consider  him  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  this 
it  appears  very  clear  they  did,  by  the  scripture  testimony: 
and  although  it  has  not,  as  above  observed,  given  cause  as 
yet,  to  alter  my  views  on  the  subject,  as  tradition  is  a 
mighty  bulwark,  not  easily  removed,  yet  it  has  had  this 
salutary  effect,  to  deliver  me  from  judging  my  brethren 
and  fellow-creatures  who  are  in  that  belief,  and  can  feel 
the  same  flow  of  love  and  unity  with  them,  as  though  they 
were  in  the  same  belief  with  myself:  neither  would  I  dare 
to  say  positively  that  it  would  be  my  mind,  they  should 
change  their  belief,  unless  I  could  give  them  much  greater 
evidence  than  I  am  at  present  possessed  of,  as  I  consider 
in  regard  to  our  salvation,  they  are  both  non-essentials; 
and  I  may  further  say,  that  I  believe  it  would  be  much 
greater  sin  in  me,  to  smoke  tobacco  that  was  the  produce 
of  the  labour  of  slaves,  than  it  would  be  to  believe  either 
of  these  positions." 

In  a  letter  to  Dr.  N.  Shoemaker,  dated  third  month 
31st.  1823,  he  writes  thus:  "  Thy  acceptable  letter  of  1st 
month  last,  came  duly  to  hand,  but  my  religious  engage- 
ments, and  other  necessary  concerns,  have  prevented  my 
giving  it  that  attention  that  its  contents  seem  to  demand. 
Thou  queries  after  my  views  of  the  suflering  of  Jesus 


157 

Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  what  was  the  object  of  the 
shedding  of  his  blood  on  the  cross,  and  what  benefits  re- 
sulted to  mankind  by  the  shedding  of  this  blood,  &c.  I 
shall  answer  in  a  very  simple  way,  as  I  consider  the  whole 
subject  to  be  a  very  simple  one,  as  all  truth  is  simple  when 
we  free  ourselves  from  the  improper  bias  of  tradition  and 
education,  which  rests  as  a  burthensome  stone  on  the 
minds*  of  most  of  the  children  of  men,  and  which  very 
much  mars  the  unity  and  harmony  of  society. 

"  1st.  By  what  means  did  Jesus  suffer'?  The  answer  is 
plain,  by  the  hands  of  wicked  men,  and  because  his  works 
were  righteous  and  theirs  were  wicked.  Query.  Did  God 
send  him  into  the  world  purposely  to  suffer  death  by  the 
hands  of  wicked  men?  By  no  means;  but  to  live  a  right- 
eous and  godly  life,  (which  was  the  design  and  end  of 
God's  creating  man  in  the  beginning,)  and  thereby  be  a 
perfect  example  to  such  of  mankind  as  should  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  him  and  of  his  perfect  life." 

"  But,  /  do  not  consider  thai  the  crucifixion  of  the  outward 
body  of  Jlesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  on  the  cross,  was  an  atone- 
ment fur  any  sins  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews ;  for  as  their 
law  was  outward,  so  their  legal  sins  and  their  penalties 
were  outward,  and  these  could  be  atoned  for  by  an  out-* 
ward  sacrifice;  and  this  last  outward  sacrifice,  was  a 
full  type  of  the  inward  sacrifice  that  every  sinner  must 
make,  in  giving  up  that  sinful  life  of  his  own  will,  in  and 
by  which  he  hath  from  time  to  time,  crucified  the  inno* 
cent  life  of  God  in  his  own  soul;  and  which  Paul  calls 
"the  old  man  with  his  deeds,"  or  "the  man  of  sin,  and 
son  of  perdition,"  who  haih  taken  God's  seat  in  the  heart, 
and  there  exalteih  itself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  is 
worshipped,  sitting  as  judge,  and  supreme.  Now  all  this 
life,  power,  and  will  of  man,  must  be  slain,  and  die  on  the 
cross  spiritually,  as  Jesus  died  on  the  cross  outwardly, 
and  this  is  the  true  atonement,  which  that  outward  atone- 
ment was  a  clear  and  full  type  of." 

"  Surely,  is  it  possible,  that  any  rational  being  that  has  any 
right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy,  that  rwuld  be  willing  to  accept 
forgiveness  of  his  sins  on  such  terms !  !  !  Would  he  not  rather-^ 
go  fonvard  and  offer  himself  wholly  up  to  suffer  all  the  pen^'^ 
allies  due  to  his  crimes,  rather  than  the  innocent  should  sufer? 
J^ay — was  he  so  hardy  a?  to  ack?ioidedge  a  willingness  to  be 
saved  through  such  a  medium,  would  it  not  prove  that  he  stood 
m  direct  opposition  to  every  principle  of  justice  and  honesty f 
15 


158 

of  mercy  and  love,  and  show  himself  to  be  a  poor  selfish  crew 
ture,  and  unworthy  of  notice ! ! ! 

♦'  Having  given  thee  a  sketch  of  my  views  on  the  sub- 
ject of  thy  queries,  how  far  thou  may  consider  them  cor- 
rect, I  must  leave  to  thy  judgment  and  consideration  ;  and 
may  now  recommend  thee  to  shake  off  all  traditional 
views  that  thou  hast  imbibed  from  external  evidences,  and 
turn  thy  mind  to  the  light  within,  as  thy  only  true  teacher  : 
wait  patiently  for  its  instruction,  and  it  will  teach  thee 
more  than  men  or  books  can  do;  and  lead  thee  to  a 
clearer  sight  and  sense  of  what  thou  desirest  to  know, 
than  I  have  words  clearly  to  convey  it  to  thee  in." 

In  this  letter  he  not  only  expresses  the  opinion  that  the 
suflerings  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  were  not  an  atone- 
ment for  any  sins,  but  the  legal  sins  of  the  Jews,  but  he 
goes  further,  and  asks  whether  it  is  possible  that  any  ra- 
tional being,  who  has  any  right  sense  of  justice  or  mercy, 
would  be  willing  to  accept  salvation  or  forgiveness  of  sins, 
upon  such  terms.  It  is  impossible  to  make  use  of  stronger 
terms,  in  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
than  he  has  done  in  this  letter.  I  might  detain  the  court 
by  reading  numerous  passages  from  his  printed  sermons 
delivered  in  public  meetings,  within  the  limits  of  the  Phil- 
adelphia yearly  meeting,  and  in  other  places,  in  which  he 
promulgates  sentiments  similar  to  those  which  I  have 
already  exhibited,  but  it  would  be  superfluous,  the  fact  of 
his  holding  and  preaching  these  doctrines  is  notorious, 
and  has  been  so  for  years  past 

We  have  then,  written  declarations,  under  the  hand  of 
Ehas  Hicks,  declaring  the  doctrines  which  he  holds.  What 
is  there  to  overcome  all  this  body  of  oral  and  written  evi- 
dence, and  induce  us  to  believe,  that  he  held  the  doctrines 
of  the  primitive  Friends,  and  that  he  did  not  hold  the  doc- 
trines which  he  thus  repeatedly  and  deliberately  declares 
that  he  did  hold?  There  is  nothing  to  contradict  all  this 
evidence,  except  his  answers  to  certain  queries  that  were 
put  to  him  in  1829,  after  this  difficulty  and  schism  had 
occurred  in  the  society.  There  is  no  doubt  but  these 
queries  were  addressed  to  him  for  the  very  purpose  of 
procuring  such  answers,  as  should  induce  his  friends  to 
think  that  he  did  not  go  so  far,  as  his  former  letters  and 
sermons  clearly  imply.  To  persons  unaccustomed  to  his 
views,  and  modes  of  expression,  it  might  seem  that  these 
answers  were  more  orthodox.     But  knowing  his  evasive 


159 

manner  of  speaking,  and  the  contradictions  which  he  fre- 
quently ran  himself  into,  we  can  find  no  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding his  real  meaning.  They  contain  no  clear  and 
direct  acknowledgment  of  those  doctrines,  which  he  was 
so  well  known  to  deny,  and  in  several  points  they  fully 
confirm  his  denial  of  them.     One  of  these  answers  is  pro-- 
fessedly  given  with  the  view  of  declaring  his  belief  in  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  In  the  first  part  of  his  answer  he  says, 
very  artfully,  that  no  man  had  ever  inculcated  that  doc- 
trine more  frequently  than  he  had  done.  But  he  no  where, 
in  his  answer  admits,  or  alleges  his  belief  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  understood  by  all  orthodox 
sects.    The  divinity  to  which  he  alludes,  is  the  divinity  of 
the  spirit  that  was  in  Christ;  this  and  this  only,  he  consid- 
ered to  be  the  Christ.     He  says  Jesus  was  truly  the  Son 
of  God,  endued  with  power  from  on  high,  but  he  held  this 
to   be  true,   as  regarded  every  true   christian.     He   ex- 
plains his  meaning  to  be,  that  Jesus  had  a  larger  measure 
of  this  spirit  than  other  men,  because  he  had  a  greater 
work  to  perform,  and  illustrates  it,  by  referring  to  the  par- 
able of  the  servants,  one  of  whom  had  five  talents,  another 
two,  and  a  third  only  one  talent.     But  he  no  where  ad- 
mits that  in  Jesus  Christ  dwelt  all  the  fullness  of  the  God- 
head bodily,  he  no  where  ascribes  to  him  complete  and 
underived  divinity. 

Giving  to  this  testimony  all  the  credit  which  the  oppo- 
site counsel  claim  for  it,  can  we  believe  that  it  is  entitled 
to  more  weight  than  his  repeated  public  testimonies,  in  the 
character  of  a  minister,  and  his  numerous  letters  to,  and 
conversations  with  his  brethren?  And  here  permit  me  to 
remark,  that  Elias  Hicks  justified  and  defended  an  evasive 
policy ;  there  is  evidence  before  this  court,  that  he  con- 
tended for  the  propriety  of  such  a  course.  There  is  evi- 
dence, that  Elias  Hicks  declared  of  Fox  and  Barclay, 
that  if  they'  had  honestly  spoken  out,  they  would  have 
agreed  with  him,  but  that  they  kept  silence  from  motives 
of  policy,  in  which  he  justified  them,  because  the  temper 
of  the  times  would  not  bear  an  open  declaration  of  their 
real  sentiments.  He  quotes  the  saying  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
that  he  became  all  things  to  all  men,  as  a  pretext  for  dis- 
simulation and  falsehood.  If  then  he  held  the  sentiments 
attributed  to  him,  and  which  he  declared  he  did  hold,  and 
entertained  these  views  of  the  lawfulness  of  evasion,  can 
we  doubt,  but  that  in  penning  these  answers,  he  would  use 


160 

such  language  as  would  deceive  others,  and  at  the  same 
time  satisfy  his  own  conscience.  The  evidence  of  the  un- 
sound doctrines  of  Ehas  Hicks,  and  his  admission  that 
they  were  different  from  the  principles  of  the  early 
Friends,  is  proved  so  conclusively,  that  there  can  remain 
no  doubt  respecting  them.  Neither  can  there  be  any 
question,  that  these  were  the  doctrines  referred  to  by  the 
new  society,  in  their  address  of  fourth  month,  1827,  when 
ihey  say,  that  "doctrines  held  by  one  part  of  society,  and 
which  they  [the  Hicksitesj  believe  to  be  sound  and  edify- 
ing, are  pronounced  by  the  other  part,  to  be  unsound  and 
spurious."  The  fact  is  proved  by  their  own  witnesses,  as 
well  as  by  the  circumstance,  that  there  were  no  doctrines 
in  controversy  between  them,  but  those  of  Elias  Hicks. 
The  whole  evidence  shows,  that  his  doctrines,  and  those 
of  the  new  society,  are  the  same.  They  espoused  his 
cause,  and  undertook  to  defend  him  against  the  elders, 
when  these  attempted  to  call  him  to  account  for  spreading 
these  doctrines,  and  from  that  opposition  to  the  elders,  and 
support  of  Elias  Hicks,  all  these  difficulties  arose.  They 
all  arose  from  the  attempts  of  the  elders  to  prevent  the 
spreading  of  these  doctrines,  and  from  a  party  in  the  so- 
ciety rising  up  to  defend  Ehas  Hicks  in  spreading  them. 
The  leading  men  belonging  to  this  party,  their  pubhc  min- 
isters, the  particular  friends  of  Hicks,  Lower  and  Jackson, 
so  far  as  we  can  ascertain  from  the  evidence,  hold  the 
same  doctrines.  When  they  come  to  be  examined,  they 
refuse  to  answer,  because  they  know  that  they  could  not 
disclose  their  doctrines,  without  showing  a  departure  from 
the  doctrines  of  Friends,  and  their  unity  with  Hicks.  I 
repeat  again,  there  were  no  other  doctrines  than  those  of 
Ehas  Hicks  in  controversy;  there  were  none  other  but 
his  about  which  the  dispute  could  have  arisen,  because  no 
other  were  controverted.  When  therefore  we  ascertain 
what  the  doctrines  of  Hicks  are,  we  show  the  doctrines 
respecting  which  all  the  controversy,  and  difficulty,  and 
schism  arose. 

But  we  do  not  rest  here.  After  all  this  separation  had 
occurred,  after  the  controversy  respecting  the  sentiments 
of  Hicks  had  existed  for  years,  and  his  sermons  contain- 
ing them  had  been  preached  and  published,  and  extensive- 
ly circulated  ;  and  this  "  Hicksite"  party  gave  him  certifi- 
cates of  their  unity  with  him,  did  they  not  thereby  adopt 
his  doctrines  1    Wq  fiad  from  the  evidence,  that  Hicks  at- 


161 

tended  the  new  yearly  meeting  in  Green  street,  in  the  ye&r 
1828,  after  the  separation,  and  that  that  meeting  then  gave 
him  a  certificate  of  unity  and  acceptance  with  them.  Was 
not  this  a  clear  and  full  admission  that  they  adopted  and 
approved  his  doctrines'?  I  refer  for  proof  of  these  facts 
to  the  testimony  of  Abrahiam  Lower,  vol.  J.  Ev.  p.  4G8, 
and  of  Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  II.  Ev.  p.  167.  After  an 
examination  of  the  evidence  in  this  cause,  it  cannot  be 
pretended  by  any  man,  that  this  unhappy  breach  arose 
about  discipline;  the  whole  difficulty  proceeded  from  the 
controversy  about  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks.  The  al- 
leged violations  of  the  discipline  were  the  effects  not  the 
causes  of  the  controversy.  Hicks  himself  well  knew,  and 
he  admitted,  that  his  doctrines  were  not  the  same  as  those 
of  the  original  Friends,  of  Fox  and  Barclay. 

But  can  we  have  a  doubt  of  the  fact,  when  we  see  the 
same  schism  occurring,  on  the  same  grounds,  in  other 
places.  In  New  York  as  in  Philadelphia,  it  was  a  dissen- 
sion about  doctrines.  The  separation  in  Philadelphia  took 
place  before  that  in  New  York.  That  in  New  York  oc- 
curred in  the  following  year.  Elias  Hicks  was  there. 
We  find  that  a  scene  of  tumult  and  confusion  attended  it, 
which  could  not  be  surpassed  by  a  town  meeting;  Hicks 
calling  out  and  encouraging  his  adherents,  telling  them 
not  to  let  the  clerk  proceed.  His  name  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  party  in  this  state  or  in  Pennsylvania,  but  attaches  to 
them  wherever  the  separation  has  taken  place.  In  Ohio 
and  Indiana  the  same  state  of  things  exists,  there  they  are 
greatly  in  the  minority.  Here  they  allege  they  are  a  ma- 
jority, but  that  is  a  matter  of  doubt,  as  appears  from  the 
evidence ;  their  majority  is  not  proved.  The  same  sepa- 
ration having  taken  place  in  New  York,  Philadelphia, 
Ohio,  and  Indiana,  and  Hicks  being  in  concert  and  union 
with  the  seceding  party  in  all  these  places,  the  conclusion 
is  irresistible,  that  the  same  ground  of  separation  exists  in 
all,  and  that  this  ground  is  the  doctrines  which  he  promul- 
gated. I  think,  therefore,  the  court  can  have  no  difficulty 
in  deciding  that  the  schism  arose  about  religious  doctrines, 
and  about  the  doctrines  inculcated  by  him. 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  evidence  on  this  head,  as 
fully  as  is  necessary  to  place  this  case  in  its  true  light.  I 
have  omitted  many  topics  which  might  have  been  intro- 
duced, but  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  cause  will  be  fully 
and  carefully  examined  by  your  honours,  and  that  the  in- 
15* 


102 

vestigation  which  you  will  give  it,  will  more  than  supply 
any  deficiency  of  mine.  It  only  remains  to  inquire,  what 
is  the  law  on  the  subject  before  the  court,  if  I  have  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  the  propositions  which  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  maintain.  The  principles  of  law  applicable 
to  this  cause  have  been  so  long  and  clearly  settled,  that 
there  can  be  but  little  question  about  them  now.  When- 
ever a  schism  takes  place,  and  a  separation  follows,  the 
party  seceding  can  have  no  claim  to  the  property,  as 
against  the  congregration  from  which  they  separate. 
Whenever  they  cease  to  be  members  of  the  society,  they 
cease  to  have  any  right  to  control  its  property.  The  pro- 
perty is  held  for  the  benefit  of  the  society,  and  if  they  se- 
parated and  withdrew,  even  if  there  is  no  dispute  upon 
doctrines,  there  is  no  principle  upon  which  they  could  take 
the  property  with  them.  The  gentlemen  on  the  opposite 
side  contend,  that  there  must  be  a  dissension  on  the  ground 
of  religious  faith,  or  else  the  party  seceding  would  have  a 
right  to  the  property  in  case  they  were  a  majority.  But 
if  they  withdraw  and  establish  a  new  society,  whether 
doctrines  are  the  ground  of  dispute  and  withdrawal  or 
not,  they  cease  to  be  members  of  the  original  society,  and 
they  cease  to  have  any  claim  to  the  property  when  they 
cease  to  be  members,  their  claim  being  merely  as  mem- 
bers, not  as  individuals.  The  cases  in  the  books  clearly 
support  this  position.  This  is  the  principle  of  the  decision 
in  5  Mass.  Rep.  554.  Wherever  a  new  township,  or  cor- 
poration, or  new  parish  is  erected  out  of  an  old  one,  the 
new  can  have  no  claim  to  the  property  of  the  old  one. 
The  same  principle  is  recognized  in  8  Mass.  Rep.  96.  4  lb. 
389.  7  ibid.  435.  All  these  decisions  go  upon  the  princi- 
ple of  a  separation,  not  upon  the  ground  of  religious  doc- 
trine. If,  therefore,  this  new  society  have  separated  from 
us;  if  they  have  withdrawn;  if  they  cannot  show  that 
the  original  meeting  was  dissolved,  they  can  have  no 
claim  to  the  property.  The  yearly,  quarterly,  monthly, 
and  preparative  meetings,  all  stand  upon  the  same  footing 
in  this  respect.  If  they  have  separated  from  their  breth- 
ren, and  gone  over  to  a  new  head,  they  can  have  no 
claim  to  any  part  of  this  property.  And  the  decisions  of 
the  court  of  chancery  in  respect  to  trust  property,  are  all 
upon  the  same  principles.  A  property  held  in  trust  for  a 
religious  community,  must  be  held  in  trust  for  that  com- 
munity, and  for  promoting  those  doctrines  that  the  com- 


163 

munity  held  at  the  time  the  trust  was  created.  If  part  of 
them  change  their  doctrines,  whether  the  majority  or  the 
minority,  it  is  impossible  that  they  can  take  the  property 
belonging  to  the  society  with  them.  If  part  of  an  Episco- 
pal church  join  a  Presbyterian  church,  they  cannot  carry 
any  part  of  the  property  with  them ;  they  cannot  require 
the  others  to  change  their  opinions.  If  a  change  of  doc- 
trines takes  place  in  all  the  members  of  a  society,  there 
may  be  more  difficulty  about  it.  Lord  Eldon,  however, 
seemed  to  think,  that  even  then  the  property  could  not  be 
used  to  support  a  different  doctrine  from  that  held  at  the  time 
it  was  given.  But  where  there  is  a  majority  merely  who 
change,  there  can  be  no  doubt  according  to  the  principle 
of  trusts,  it  must  be  considered  as  held  solely  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  congregation  who  remain,  and  for  those  princi- 
ples for  which  it  was  originally  intended.  In  2  Jacob 
&  Walker,  245,  this  principle  is  fully  recognized,  that  the 
property  must  be  considered  as  held  for  the  benefit  of  that 
community,  and  of  those  doctrines,  which  existed  at  the 
time  the  trust  was  created.  The  same  doctrine  is  recog- 
nized in  Merivale,  353.  The  trust  in  that  case  was  a  very 
general  one.  It  was  expressed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  a 
congregation  worshipping  Almightji-  God.  A  reference 
was  there  made  to  a  master,  to  ascertain  the  doctrines  of 
the  society  at  the  time  of  the  trust.  It  was  there  held,  that 
if  they  were  then  trinitarians,  and  those  who  now  held  it 
were  unitarians,  it  could  not  be  held  by  them;  but  must  be 
held  for  the  benefit  of  those  for  whom  the  trust  was  origi- 
nally created. 

The  case  in  Dow,  and  in  2  Bligh,  529,  contains  the 
same  principle,  and  goes  also  to  establish  the  other  prin- 
ciple, that  if  a  division  takes  place  in  a  congregation,  and 
a  part  separate  from  the  original  head,  and  go  to  a  new 
one,  and  a  part  do  not,  whether  doctrines  form  the  ground 
of  separation  or  not,  the  part  which  go  over  to  the  new 
head  lose  tlieir  rights.  If  the  superior  churches  change 
their  doctrine,  the  subordinate  ones  are  not  bound  to 
change  theirs.  If  a  part  of  the  head  changes  its  doctrines, 
and  a  part  of  the  subordinate  branches  change  theirs  also, 
then  those  who  separate  and  form  a  new  head,  will  lose 
their  right  to  the  property  ;  but  if  there  is  no  dispute  about 
doctrine,  those  who  separate  from  the  head  will  be  consi- 
dered as  seceders,  and  will  lose  the  benefit  of  the  property. 
If  the  whole  head  changes  its  religious  principles,  the  so- 


164 

ciety  which  separates  from  it,  and  adheres  to  the  reli- 
gious principles  of  the  society,  will  not  lose  their  rights. 
These  decisions  are  all  in  conformity  to,  and  all  go  upon 
the  same  principle.  The  principle  of  majority  has  never 
been  made  the  ground  of  decision  in  the  case  of  a  schism 
in  a  congregation  or  religious  society.  Such  a  principle 
is  not  to  be  found  in  our  law  books  or  systems  of  equity. 
Upon  what  principle  can  the  majority  claim  the  property, 
if  they  absolve  themselves  from  the  head  of  their  church, 
and  voluntarily  withdraw?  They  cannot  take  away  the 
right  of  property  from  those  who  adhere  to  the  society 
to  which  they  originally  belonged.  If  they  hold  in  their 
individual  capacity,  each  will  receive  an  individual  por- 
tion according  to  his  right.  If  they  hold  as  members, 
they  can  control  the  property  no  longer  than  they  continue 
in  membership:  the  right  cannot  be  afiected  by  a  change 
of  trustees. 

These  principles  as  laid  down  in  Dow  and  Bligh,  are 
highly  important,  and  will  govern  the  court  in  this  case. 

It  would  be  strange  indeed,  if  property  belonging  to  a 
religious  community,  was  to  be  divided  every  time  a  schism 
takes  place  ;  this  would  be  a  great  encouragement  to  schis- 
matics. There  can  be  but  one  uniform  principle.  When 
a  division  takes  place  by  consent  of  parties,  they  may  di- 
vide the  general  property,  but  the  court  will  never  suffer 
property  held  in  trust  for  a  particular  charity  to  be  divided, 
and  a  part  diverted  to  another  object.  The  idea  of  the 
gentlemen  opposed  to  us  was,  that  if  the  trust  was  ex- 
plicitly declared  in  the  deed  of  trust,  the  court  must  be 
governed  by  it,  and  if  not  so  expressed,  the  majority  must 
govern.  In  reply,  I  refer  to  the  case  in  3  Merivale,  and 
the  one  in  Bligh.  There  the  most  general  terms  were 
used  in  the  creation  of  the  trust,  and  yet  the  court  held 
that  they  must  look  back,  and  if  they  could  discover  the 
original  intention  of  the  trust,  they  would  be  governed  by 
it.  The  cases  I  have  quoted  furnish  full  answers  to  all 
the  distinctions  attempted  to  be  raised  by  the  opposite  coun- 
sel. It  will  be  found  that  his  positions  are  all  untenable, 
and  that  there  is  but  one  uniform  principle  running  through 
and  governing  all  the  decisions  of  the  courts.  This  ques- 
tion is  highly  important,  not  only  to  the  society  of  Friends, 
but  to  every  religious  community];  what  is  the  law  in  re- 
gard to  one,  must  also  be  as  respects  all ;  we  are  now  to 
know  whether  the  principle  is  to  be  sanctioned,  that  a 


165 

majority  is  to  prevail  over  a  minority,  and  to  divest  them 
of  their  rights.  The  decision  of  this  cause  then  is  a  subject 
of  great  interest  and  importance  to  every  religious  com- 
munity, and  at  the  hands  of  this  court  it  doubtless  will  re- 
ceive that  careful  and  deliberate  consideration  which  its 
magnitude  demands. 

With  these  considerations,  I  submit  the  case  to  the 
court,  not  doubting  but  a  decision  will  be  made  that  shall 
promote  the  interests  both  of  the  society  of  Friends,  and 
the  community  at  large.  It  is  highly  desirable  that  this 
question  should  be  settled  on  its  real  merits ;  no  technical 
objections  have  been  raised,  and  great  pains  have  been 
taken  to  ascertain  the  true  character  and  rights  of  the  re- 
spective parties.  They  are  placed  in  an  unhappy  situation, 
and  the  question  must,  sooner  or  later,  be  determined. 
The  sooner  it  is  done  the  better  it  will  be  for  all  parties ; 
and  we  trust  such  a  decision  will  be  given,  as  shall  put 
the  matter  entirely  at  rest. 


THE    DECISION. 


CHANCERY  OF  IVEW  JERSEY. 

BETWEEN 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  complainant,       '\ 

and  I     On  bill  for 

Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  and  Elizabeth  [relief,  &c. 
his  wife,  defendants.  J 

AND  BETWEEN 

Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  complainant,      '\      q^  j^-^  ^^ 

Joseph  Hendrickson  and  Stagy  De-  j  ^^«  ^  ^ 

Q^Yf,  defendants.  "  J  ^^' 

On  the  10th  July,  1832,  Chief  Justice  Ewing  and  Jus- 
tice Drake  came  into  court,  and  delivered  their  opinions 
in  this  cause. 

Opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Ewing. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  exhibited  a  bill  of  complaint  in 
this  court,  stating  that  on  the  second  day  of  April,  one- 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-one,  being  the  Trea- 
surer of  the  School  Fund  of  the  Preparative  Meeting  of 
the  Society  of  Friends  of  Chesterfield,  in  the  county  of 
Burlington,  he  loaned  the  sum  of  two  thousand  dollars, 
part  of  that  fund,  to  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  who  thereupon 
made  a  bond  to  him,  by  the  name  and  description  of  Jo- 
seph Hendrickson,  Treasurer  of  the  School  Fund  of  Cross- 
wicks  Meeting,  conditioned  for  the  payment  of  the  said 
sum,  with  interest,  to  him,  treasurer  as  aforesaid,  or  his 
successor,  on  the  second  day  of  April,  then  next  ensuing, 
and  also  a  mortgage  of  the  same  date,  by  the  like  name 
and  description,  on  certain  real  estate,  with  a  condition  of 
redemption  on  payment  of  the  said  sum  of  money,  with  in- 
terest, to  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson,  or  his  successor, 
treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  according  to  the  condition 
of  the  aforesaid  bond.  He  farther  states,  that  Thomas  L. 
Shotwell  refuses  to  pay  the  money  to  him,  being  treasu* 


rer  as  aforesaid,  on  divers  unfounded  and  erroneous  pre- 
tensions;  and  he  seeks  relief  in  this  court  by  a  decree  for 
the  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage,  or  for  a  sale  of  the  mort- 
gaged premises,,  and  an  appropriation  of  the  proceeds  to 
the  payment  of  the  debt. 

Sometime  after  the  exhibition  of  this  bill,  Thomas  L. 
Shotwell  filed  here  a  bill  of  interpleader,  wherein  Joseph. 
Hendrickson  and  Stacy  Decow  are  made  defendants ;  in 
which  he  admits  the  above  mentioned  bond  and  mortgage, 
and  the  source  from  which  emanated  the  money  thereby 
intended  to  be  secured,  the  school  fund  of  the  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting.   He  admits,  also,  the  liability  of  him- 
self, and  the  real  estate  described  in  the  mortgage,  and 
avows  his  readiness  and  willingness  to  pay  whatever  is  due. 
T    ^    u  4^^^  ^^^^-y  Decow  has  warned  him  not  to  pay  to 
Joseph  Hendrickson,  alleging  that  Hendrickson  is  no  longer 
treasurer  of  the  fund,  and  has  therefore  no  right  to  re- 
c.eive ;  and  that  he  is  the  treasurer  and  successor  of  Hen- 
""'''''  «"ch  claims  the  money  mentioned  in  the 
drlcKsoiJ,  ttuw «-  — ,        -  '         ^^''*''^n  of  this 

bond  and  mortgage.  Seeking,  then,  the  proucv^v., —  . 
court,  and  offering,  on  being  indemnified  by  its  power,  to 
pay  to  whomsoever  the  right  belongs,  he  prays  that  Joseph 
Hendrickson  and  Stacy  Decow  may,  according  to  the 
course  and  practice  of  this  court,  interplead,  and  adjust 
between  themselves  their  respective  claims. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  answered  this  bill;  and  insists  as 
in  his  original  bill,  that  he  is,  as  he  was  when  the  bond 
and  mortgage  were  executed,  the  treasurer  of  the  school 
fund  of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at 
Crosswicks,  and  is  entitled  to  the  bond  and  mortgage,  and 
to  receive  the  money  due  thereon. 

Stacy  Decow  has  also  answered  the  bill  of  interpleader. 
He  admits  the  loan  of  the  money,  part  of  the  school  fund, 
to  Shotwell,  and  the  due  execution  and  delivery,  and  the 
validity  of  the  bond  and  mortgage,  and  that  when  they 
were  made,  Joseph  Hendrickson  was  the  treasurer  of  the 
school  fund,  duly  appointed  by  the  Chesterfield  prepara- 
tive meeting  at  Crosswicks;  in  whom,  as  all  the  parties 
in  this  cause  admit,  was  vested  the  right  of  appointing  the 
treasurer  of  the  fund.  But  he  says  that  before  the  filing 
of  the  original  bill  by  Joseph  Hendrickson,  and  "  on  the 
thirty-first  day  of  the  first  month,  1828,  at  a  lawful  meet- 
ing of  the  said  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends, 
held  at  the  usual  time  and  place  of  meeting  at  Crosswicks, 


he  was  appointed,  in  due  and  lawful  manner,  treasurer  of 
the  said  school  fund,  to  succeed  the  said  Joseph  Hend rick- 
son;  and  as  such  successor,  became  entitled  to  all  the 
books,  obligations,  and  other  papers,  which  he  had  in  his 
possession,  and  also  to  the  funds  then  in  his  hands,  and 
more  particularly  to  the  bond  and  mortgage  in  the  origi- 
nal bill  and  bill  of  interpleader  mentioned,  and  the  money 
due  thereon  ;  and  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson  ceased  to 
have  any  right,  title,  or  claim  thereto."  He  farther  insists 
"  that  he  always  has  continued  since  his  appointment,  and 
is  the  lawful  treasurer  of  the  said  school  fund,  and  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson  is  lawfully  entitled 
to  have  and  receive  all  such  bonds,  obligations,  and  mort- 
gages, and  the  money  due  thereon,  as  had  been  taken  for 
the  loan  of  any  part  of  the  said  fund  in  his  name  as  trea- 
surer of  the  said  school  fund,  or  payable  to  him,  as  such 
treasurer,  or  his  successor." 

This  brief  view  of  the  pleadings  is  here  represented,  in 
order  distinctly  to  exhibit,  in  a  clear  and  naked  manner, 
divested  of  auxiliary  and  explanatory jnatters,  and  especi- 
ally of  forensic  forms,  the  grounds  of  the  respective 
claims  of  the  interpleading  parties.  And  hence,  we  may 
discern,  the  great  outlines  of  the  inquiries  which  an  inves- 
tigation of  this  cause  will  lead  us  to  make.  For  accord- 
ing to  these  pretensions,  and  to  these  alone,  thus  set  forth 
in  the  pleadings,  as  they  are  respectively  supported  or 
subdued  by  the  proofs,  the  decree  of  this  tribunal  must  be 
made,  whatever  other  points  favourable  or  unfavourable  to 
either  party  may  become  manifest  by  the  evidence. 

Joseph  Hendrickson  claims  the  money,  because  origin- 
ally made  payable  to  him,  and  because  he  is,  as  he  then 
was,  the  treasurer  of  the  fund. 

Stacy  Decow  claims  the  money,  because  payable  by 
the  terms  of  the  bond  to  the  successor  of  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson in  that  office,  and  because  he  became,  and  is 
such  successor,  and  the  present  treasurer. 

A  slight  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  establishment  and 
organization  of  the  Crosswicks  school,  and  of  the  fund, 
may  be  interesting,  and  will,  perhaps  shed  light  on  some 
step  in  the  progress  of  our  investigations. 

The  education  of  youth  and  the  establishment  of  schools, 
attracted  the  care  and  attention,  and  brought  out  the  ex- 
ertions, of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadephia,  at  an  early 
day.  Most  earnest  and  pressing  recommendations  of  these 
16* 


interesting  duties,  to  the  consideration  and  notice  of  the 
society  were  repeatedly  made ;  and  to  render  these  more 
effectual,  committees  were  appointed  to  attend  and  assist 
the  quarterly  meetings.  In  the  year  1778,  the  yearly 
meeting  adopted  the  report  of  a  committee  "  that  it  be  re- 
commended to  the  quarterly,  and  from  them  to  the  monthly 
and  preparative  meetings,  that  the  former  advice,  for  the 
collecting  a  fund  for  the  establishment  and  support  of 
schools,  under  the  care  of  a  standing  committee,  appoint- 
ed by  the  several  monthly  or  particular  meetings,  should 
generally  take  place,  and  that  it  be  recommended  by  the 
■  yearly  meeting,  to  friends  of  each  quarter,  to  sgnd  up  the 
next  year,  an  account  of  what  they  have  done  herein." 
And  the  report  suggests  the  propriety  of  "  a  subscription 
towards  a  fund,  the  increase  of  which  might  be  employed 
in  paying  the  master's  salary,  and  promoting  the  educa- 
tion of  the  poorer  Friends'  children."  vol.  2.  Evid.  387. 

The  quarterly  meeting  of  BiK-lington  appear  to  have 
faithfully  striven  to  promote  the  wise  views  and  benevolent 
purposes  of  the  yearly  meeting.  In  1777,  and  1778,  ap- 
propriate measures  were  adopted,  vol.  2.  Evid.  436.  In 
1783,  the  subject  was  "  afresh  recommended  to  the  due 
attention  of  their  monthly  and  preparative  meetings,  and 
to  produce  renewed  exertion,"  a  committee  previously 
appointed,  was  discharged,  and  a  new  one  raised;  and 
"  it  is  desired,"  says  the  minute,"  "  that  accounts  of  our 
progress  herein,  may  be  brought  forward  timely,  to  go 
from  this  to  the  ensuing  yearly  meeting."  vol.  2.  Evid.  436. 

Within  the  bounds  of  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting; 
although  a  committee  had  been  for  some  time  charged 
with  the  subject,  there  appears  no  practical  result,  until 
after  the  meeting  in  April,  1788,  when  a  new  committee 
was  appointed,  "  to  endeavour  to  promote  the  establishing 
of  schools,  agreeably  to  the  directions  of  the  yearly 
meeting."  vol.  2.  Evid.  349.  In  August,  1789,  the  com- 
mittee reported,  that  they  had  agreed  on  a  place  to  build 
a  schoolThouse,  and  had  obtained  subscriptions  to  a  con- 
siderable amount,  and  had  agreed  "to  lay  the  same  before 
the  monthly  meeting  for  their  approbation."  The  minute 
of  the  meeting  approves,  "  and  empowers  them  to  pro- 
ceed." vol.  2.  Evid.  349.  To  the  monthly  meeting  of 
August,  1791.  "  The  committee  appointed  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  schools,  agreeably  Jo  the  direction  of  the 
yearly  meeting,  reported,  there  is  a  house  at  Chesterfield, 


so  far  finished,  that  a  school  might  be  kept  in  it,  but  it  ig 
not  yet  occupied  for  that  purpose ;  neither  is  there  any 
such  school  within  this  monthly  meeting."  The  clerk  was 
directed  "  to  send  up"  this  report  "  to^the  ensuing  quar- 
terly meeting."  vol.  2.  Evid.  349.  No  other  action  on  it 
took  place  by  the  monthly  meeting,  until  December,  1791, 
when  they  recommended  to  the  preparative  meeting  of 
Chesterfield,  "  and  they  are  hereby  authorized,"  says  the 
entry  on  the  minutes,  "to  open  a  school  in  the  said  house, 
and  appoint  a  suitable  number  of  Friends,  as  trustees,  to 
take  the  care  and  oversight  thereof,  and  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  government  and  promotion  of  the 
institution ;  which  rules  and  regulations  shall  always  be 
inspected  by  the  monthly  meeting  committee,  for  their  ap- 
probation or  disallowance ;  and  said  meeting  are  likewise 
authorized  to  appoint  a  treasurer,  to  receive  subscriptions 
and  donations,  for  accumulating  a  fund."  Vol.  2.  Evid. 
349,  exhib.  51. 

The  fruit  of  these  discreet  and  vigorous  measures  soon 
appeared.  The  house  built,  provision  made  for  trustees 
and  a  treasurer,  and  the  accumulation  of  a  fund  thus 
earnestly  resolved,  a  subscription  was  opened,  and  numer- 
ous and  generous  donations  were  obtained.  The  original 
instrument  of  writing  has  been  produced  before  us.  It  is 
an  interesting  record  of  liberality.  The  subscribers  de- 
scribe themselves  to  be  "  members  of  the  preparative 
meeting  of  the  people  called  Quakers,  at  Crosswicks." 
They  engage  to  make  the  payments  to  the  "  treasurer  of 
the  school  at  Crosswicks,  begun  and  set  up  under  the  care 
of  the  preparative  meeting."  And  the  purpose  is  thus  de- 
clared. "  The  principal  whereof,  so  subscribed,  is  to  be 
and  remain  a  permanent  fund,  under  the  direction  of  the 
trustees  of  the  said  school,  now  or  hereafter  to  be  chosen 
by  the  said  preparative  meeting,  and  by  them  laid  out  or 
lent  on  interest,  in  such  a  manner  as  they  shall  judge  will 
best  secure  an  interest  or  annuity,  which  interest  or  an- 
nuity is  to  be  applied  to  the  education  of  such  children  as 
now  do,  or  hereafter  shall,  belong  to  the  same  prepara- 
tive meeting,  whose  parents  are,  or  shall  not  be,  of  ability 
to  pay  for  their  education."     Exhib.  1,  vol.  2.  Evid.  411. 

This  subscription  was  the  basis  of  the  school  fund.  Ac- 
cessions to  it  were  afterwards  made,  by  other  individuals 
of  the  society ;  and  the  quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington, 
who  held  and  owned  a  stock,  composed  of  donations,  be- 


8 

quests,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  some  meeting 
houses,  resolved,  in  1792,  to  divide  a  portion  of  it  among 
the  monthly  meetings,  "  for  the  promotion  of  schools,  an- 
swerable to  the  recommendation  of  the  yearly  meeting, 
by  estabUshing  permanent  funds  within  such  of  the  meet- 
ings where  none  have  been  heretofore,  or  in  addition  to  such 
as  are  already  established."  vol.  2.  Evid.  437,  exhib.  32. 
The  share  of  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  having  been 
received,  was  subdivided,  and  a  part  of  it  paid  over  to 
the  treasurer  of  the  school  fund  of  the  preparative  meet- 
ing in  Chesterfield,  "  to  be  applied  to  the  use  directed  by 
the  minute  of  the  quarterly  meeting."  vol.2.  Evid  347,  exhib. 
51.  In  1802,  a  farther  sum,  arising  from  the  sale  of  "  an 
old  meeting  house,"  was  paid  to  the  treasurer,  by  the 
monthly  meeting,  to  be  appropriated  in  the  same  manner. 
Exhib.  0  2,  vol.  2.  Evid.  347. 

In  this  way,  and  by  discreet  and  prudent  management, 
a  fund  was  accumulated,  a  school  house  erected,  and,  as 
we  learn  from  one  of  the  witnesses,  "  Friends,  for  many 
years,  generally  had  a  school  kept  therein,  under  their  su- 
perintendence, and  frequently  appropriated  a  part  of  the 
proceeds  towards  paying  the  teacher's  salary,  and  for  the 
education  of  children  contemplated  in  the  original  estab- 
lishment of  the  fund."     Samuel  Craft,  vol.  2.  Evid.  350. 

A  part  of  this  fund,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  loan- 
ed to  Thomas  L.  Shotwell,  and  is  the  subject  of  the  pre- 
sent controversy. 

For  the  direction  of  the  school,  and  for  the  care,  pre- 
servation, and  management  of  the  fund,  provision,  as  has 
been  shown,  was  made,  as  well  by  the  terms  of  the  sub- 
scription, as  by  the  resolution  of  the  monthly  meeting. 
The  oflicers,  were  accordingly  appointed  by  the  prepara- 
tive meeting,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  required. 
The  trustees  were  usually  chosen  in  the  first  month  of 
every  year,  vol.  2.  Evid.  287.  No  fixed  term  of  office  ap- 
pears to  have  been  assigned  to  the  treasurer;  so  that  the 
incumbent  remained  until  removed  by  death,  resignation, 
or  the  will  of  the  appointing  body.  The  person  who  held 
that  station  when  the  subscription  was  made,  continued 
there  until  1812,  when  another  Friend  succeeded  him, 
and  remained  in  ofiice  until  Joseph  Hendrickson  was  duly 
appointed,  in  1816. 

The  facts  thus  far  presented  are  not,  and  from  the 
pleadings  and  evidence  in  the  cause,  cannot  be,  the  sub- 


ject  of  dispute.  There  are  some  positions,  deducible  from 
them,  which  are  equally  clear  and  incontrovertible. 

First.  The  money  mentioned  in  the  bond  being  paya- 
ble to  Joseph  Hendrickson,  as  treasurer,  he  has  an  indis- 
putable right  to  claim  and  receive  it,  if  he  remains  in  that 
office. 

Second.  Inasmuch  as  he  was  duly  appointed,  which  is 
unequivocally  admitted  by  the  pleadings,  and  inasmuch  as 
the  term  of  office  of  treasurer  does  not  cease  by  efflux  of 
time  or  by  previous  limitation,  the  legal  presumption  is 
that  he  remains  in  office  until  competent  evidence  of  his 
due  removal  is  given. 

Third.  Such  being  the  case,  Joseph  Hendrickson  is 
not  required  to  produce  farther  evidence  of  his  right  to 
receive  the  money,  or  of  his  continuance  in  office,  or 
that  he  has  been  retained  there  by  the  competent  author- 
ity; but  whoever  denies  that  right,  or  seeks  to  sustain 
any  claim  on  the  ground  that  he  has  ceased  to  be  trea- 
surer, ought  to  establish  the  ground  by  lawful  and  suffi- 
cient nvnof 

Fourth.  Inasmuch  as  Stacy  Decow  alleges  that  Joseph 
Hendrickson  was  removed  from  office,  and  that  he  was 
appointed  his  successor  and  treasurer  of  the  school  fund, 
(and  upon  this  removal  and  appointment,  he  rests,  in  his 
answer,  for  the  entire  support  of  hisclaim,)  it  is  incum- 
bent on  him  to  establish  the  fact  and  legality  of  this  re- 
moval and  appointment. 

The  power  of  appointment  and  removal,  as  the  liti- 
gating parties  unqualifiedly  admit,  is  vested  in  the  Ches- 
terfield preparative  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  meant  and 
mentioned  in  the  original  subscription  paper  or  agree- 
ment of  the  donors ;  which  is  distinguished  as  Exhibit 
No.  1,  and  which  I  have  already  referred  to  as  the  basis 
of  the  school  fund.  The  parties  also  admit,  or  rather,  in- 
sist, in  their  pleadings,  by  their  evidence,  and  in  the  ar- 
guments of  their  counsel,  that  the  preparative  meeting  is 
one  and  undivided ;  or  in  other  words,  that  there  is  and 
can  be  but  one  body  entitled  to  be  called  the  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting,  to  exercise  its  power  and  authority, 
and  especially,  the  prerogative  of  removal  and  appoint- 
ment. It  farther  appears  from  the  evidence,  that  a  body 
calling  themselves,  and  claiming  to  be,  the  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at  Crosswicks,  did  on 
the  thirty-first  day  of  January  1828,  adopt  a  resolution 


10 

and  enter  it  on  their  minutes,  to  the  following  effect: 
"  This  meeting  being  now  informed  by  the  trustees  who 
have  the  immediate  care  and  trust  of  the  school  fund  be- 
longing to  this  meeting,  that  the  person  who  was  some- 
time since  appointed  treasurer  'thereof,  refuses  to  settle 
the  account  of  the  said  fund  with  them,  this  meeting, 
therefore,  now  think  it  best  to  appoint  a  Friend  to  suc- 
ceed him  as  treasurer  of  the  said  fund,  and  Stacy  Decow 
being  now  named  to  that  service  and  united  with  by  this 
meeting,  is  appointed  accordingly." 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  issue  between  these  parties, 
and  are  enabled  to  propound  for  solution,  the  question  on 
which  their  respective  claims  depend  ;  was  this  body  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at  Cross- 
wicks,  meant  and  mentioned  in  the  establishment  of  the 
school  fund  1  If  it  was,  Stacy  Decow  is  the  successor 
and  treasurer.  If  not,  Joseph  Hendrickson  remains  in 
office,  and  is  entitled  to  the  money. 

Tlie  meetings  in  the  society  of  Friends  are  of  two 
Jdnds,  for  worship,  and  for  discipline,  as  they  are  some* 
times  called,  or  in  other  w^ords,  for  business.  This  dis- 
tinction is  sufficiently  correct  and  precise  for  our  present 
purposes,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  pause  to  consider  of 
the  suggestion,  I  have  read  somewhere  in  the  testimony 
or  documents  in  the  cause,  or  perhaps,  heard  from  the 
counsel  in  argument,  that  every  meeting  for  discipline,  is 
in  truth  a  meeting  for  worship,  since  he  who  cordially 
and  faithfully  performs  any  ecclesiastical  duty,  does  there- 
by pay  an  act  of  adoration  to  the  Almighty. 

The  meetings  for  business  are  four  in  number,  marked 
and  distinguished  by  peculiar  and  characteristic  differ- 
ences ;  preparative,  monthly,  quarterly  and  yearly.  These 
are  connected  together,  and  rise  in  gradation  and  rank  in 
the  order  of  their  enumeration.  Each  yearly  meeting 
comprehends  several  quarterly  meetings ;  each  quarterly 
meeting  several  monthly  meetings;  and  every  monthly 
meeting  embraces  several  of  the  lowest  order,  prepara- 
tive meetings.  The  preparative  meeting  is  connected 
with,  and  subordinate  to,  some  monthly  meeting;  the 
monthly  meeting,  to  some  quarterly  meeting ;  the  quar- 
terly meeting,  to  its  appropriate  yearly  meeting.  The 
connexion  and  subordination  are  constitutional  and  indis- 
pensable ;  insomuch,  that  if  any  quarterly  meeting  with- 
draws itself  from  its  proper  yearly  meeting,  without  being 


11 

in  due  and  regular  manner  united  to  some  other  yearly 
meeting,  it  ceases  to  be  a  quarterly  meeting  of  the  socie- 
ty of  Friends.  In  like  manner  of  the  other  meetings, 
down  to  the  lowest.  So  that  if  a  preparative  meeting 
withdraws  from  its  peculiar  monthly  meeting,  and  does 
not  unite  with  another  of  the  same  common  head,  or  some 
other  legal  and  constitutional  head,  or  in  other  words, 
some  acknowledged  meeting,  it  does,  from  the  moment, 
and  by  the  very  act  of  withdrawal,  cease  to  be  a  prepar- 
ative meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

The  truth  of  the  position  I  have  thus  laid  down,  respect- 
ing connexion  and  subordination,  will  not,  I  presume,  in 
the  manner,  and  to  the  full  extent  which  I  have  stated, 
meet  with  any  denial  or  doubt.  Yet,  as  it  is  of  considera- 
ble importance  in  the  present  cause,  I  shall  show  that  it  is 
established ;  first,  by  the  constitution  and  discipline  of  the 
society ;  second,  by  their  usages,  or,  as  they  might  be 
called,  in  forensic  language,  cases  in  point,  or  precedents ; 
and  lastly,  by  the  opinion  of  the  society  at  large,  so  far  aa 
may  be  learned  from  the  views  of  well  informed  mem- 
bers. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  as  proposed,  let  us  look  into  the 
book  of  discipline.  We  find  there  the  following  clear  and 
explicit  language.  "  For  the  more  regular  and  efTectual 
support  of  this  order  of  the  society,  besides  the  usual  meet- 
ings for  the  purposes  of  divine  worship,  others  are  insti- 
tuted, subordinate  to  each  other ;  such  as,  first,  prepara- 
tive meetings,  which  commonly  consist  of  the  members  of 
a  meeting  for  worship ;  second,  monthly  meetings,  each 
of  which  commonly  consists  of  several  preparative  meet- 
ings ;  third,  quarterly  meetings,  each  of  which  consists  of 
the  monthly  meetings ;  and  fourth,  the  yearly  meetings, 
which  comprises  the  whole."  "  These  meetings  have  all 
distinct  allotments  of  service."  The  connexion  of  the  se- 
veral meetings,  and  their  subordination,  in  the  manner  I 
have  suggested,  are  here  most  plainly  and  unequivocally 
shown  and  established.  The  place  which  this  clause  oc- 
cupies in  the  discipline  or  constitution,  (and  the  latter  name 
seems  more  familiar,  or  at  least  to  convey  to  professional 
minds,  more  distinct  ideas,)  serves  to  illustrate  its  impor- 
tance. It  is  mentioned  at  the  commencement ;  as  if,  one 
of  the  first  truths  to  be  taught  and  known ;  as  if,  the  very 
foundation  of  the  structure  of  discipline  raised  upon  it. 
The  article  on  appeals  speaksthe  same  idea.  A  person  ag- 


grieved  may  appeal  from  the  monthly  meeting  to  the  quar- 
terly meeting,  and  the  monthly  meeting  are  in  such  case, 
to  appoint  a  committee  to  show  the  reasons  of  their  judg- 
ment, and  submit  it  there,  where  the  judgment  is  to  b^ 
confirmed  or  reversed.  From  the  quarterly  meeting,  an 
appeal  ma}'  be  taken  to  the  yearly  meeting,  where  a  com- 
mittee are  to  attend  with  copies  of  the  records  of  the 
monthly  and  quarterly  meetings,  and  where  the  matter  is 
to  be  finally  determined;  and  a  copy  of  the  determination 
is  to  be  sent  to  the  meeting  from  which  the  appeal  came. 
In  the  article  on  meetings  for  discipline  are  contained  the 
following  clauses.  "  The  connexion  and  subordination  of 
our  meetings  for  discipHne,  are  thus,  preparative  meetings 
are  accountable  to  the  monthly;  monthly  to  tlie  quarterly; 
and  the  quarterly  to  the  yearly  meeting.  So  that  if  the 
yearly  meeting  be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  any  inferior  meeting,  or  a  quarterly  meeting 
with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  monthly  meetings,  or 
a  monthly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its 
preparative  meetings,  such  meeting  or  meetings  ought 
"with  readiness  and  meekness,  to  render  an  account  there- 
of when  required."  "  It  is  agreed,  that  no  quarterly  meet- 
ing be  set  up  or  laid  down  without  the  consent  of  the  year- 
ly meeting ;  no  monthly  meeting  without  the  consent  of 
the  quarterly  meeting ;  nor  any  preparative  or  other  meet- 
ing for  business  or  worship,  till  application  to  the  monthly 
meeting  is  first  made,  and  when  there  approved,  the  con- 
sent of  the  quarterly  meeting  be  also  obtained." 

Another  clause  requires  monthly  meetings  to  appoint 
representatives  to  attend  the  quarterly  meetings ;  and  that 
at  least  four  of  each  sex  be  appointed  in  every  quarterly 
meeting  to  attend  the  yearly  meeting.  Another  clause  is 
in  these  words :  "  The  use  and  design  of  preparative  meet- 
ings is,  in  general,  to  digest  and  prepare  business,  as  oc- 
casion may  require,  which  may  be  proper  to  be  laid  be- 
fore the  monthly  meeting." 

The  connexion  and  subordination  of  these  meetings,  and 
their  relative  rank  or  station  in  ecclesiastical  order,  being 
thus  plainly  and  conclusively  shown  and  established  by 
the  highest  authority,  the  revered  and  respected  rule  of 
government  for  this  whole  religious  community,  we  may 
naturally  expect,  what  accordingly  we  find,  numerous  in- 
stances of  the  exercise  of  authority,  of  the  subsistence  of 
this  connexion,  and  of  the  fruits  of  this  subordination,  in  the 


13 

conduct  toward  each  other,  of  the  respective  meetings. 
From  the  examples  which  are  abundantly  furnished  us 
in  the  evidence,  I  shall  select  a  very  few,  and  I  pre- 
fer, for  obvious  reasons,  to  take  them  from  the  minutes  of 
Burlington  and  Chesterfield  meetings.  The  constant  in- 
tercourse, by  representatives,  and  the  frequent  appoint- 
ment and  attendance  of  committees  from  the  yearly  to 
the  quarterly,  and  from  the  latter  to  inferior  meetings, 
need  only  to  be  mentioned  in  general  terms,  to  be  brought 
fresh  to  the  remembrance  of  all  who  know  any  thing  of 
the  ecclesiastical  history  of  their  own  times  or  of  their 
predecessors,  or  who  have  perused  the  testimony  and  do- 
cuments before  us.  In  second  month,  1778,  the  quarterly 
meeting  of  Burlington  directed  the  times  of  holding  cer- 
tain preparative  meetings,  so  as  to  be  convenient  to  a 
committee  who  were  to  visit  them.  In  second  month, 
1820,  the  quarterly  meeting  refused  to  allow  the  holding 
of  an  afternoon  meeting  for  worship,  in  Trenton,  and  di- 
rected their  clerk  to  inform  the  monthly  meeting  of  Ches- 
terfield of  their  determination.  In  1821,  the  Trenton  pre- 
parative meeting  requested  of  the  monthly  meeting,  per- 
mission to  continue  their  afternoon  sittings,  and  leave  for 
one  year  was  given.  In  fifth  month,  1825,  the  quarterly- 
meeting  declared,  that  certain  persons  admitted  into  mem- 
bership in  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  were  not  mem- 
bers, and  the  clerk  was  directed  to  communicate  this  con- 
clusion to  that  meeting  and  to  the  individuals.  In  fifth 
month,  1825,  the  quarterly  meeting  annulled  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  respecting  the 
reception  of  a  person  as  one  of  its  members.  In  eleventh 
month,  1825,  Trenton  afternoon  meetings  were  disconti- 
nued by  order  of  the  monthly  meeting.  In  fourth  month, 
1826,  the  Trenton  preparative  meeting  requested  permis- 
sion to  hold  an  afternoon  sitting,  which,  at  the  next 
monthly  meeting  was  refused.  In  1826,  Thomas  L.  Shot- 
well,  one  of  the  parties  in  this  cause,  was  disowned  by  the 
monthly  meeting  of  Chesterfield.  He  appealed  to  the 
quarterly  meeting  of  Burlington,  where  the  disownment 
was  confirmed.  In  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of 
sixth  month,  1827,  the  extracts  from  the  yearly  meeting  of 
fourth  month,  1827,  were  produced  and  read.  Contributions 
of  money  are  statedly  made,  according  to  a  prescribed 
ratio,  and  forwarded  by  the  inferior  to  the  superior  meet- 
ings, and  thus  a  stock,  as  it  is  called,  is  maintained  in  the 
17 


14 

yearly  meeting.  Occasional,  or  ex  re  nata,  contributions 
have  also,  at  times,  been  made.  The  yearly  meeting  of 
1827,  recommended  the  raising  of  a  large  sum,  three  thou- 
sand dollars,  for  a  work  of  benevolence,  and  the  prepara- 
tive and  monthly  meetings  of  Chesterfield  pursued  the  re- 
commendation, and  bore  their  usual  and  proportional  part 
in  carrying  it  into  effect. 

A  brief  reference  will  show  that  individuals,  as  well  as 
meetings  and  the  book  of  discipline,  recognise  and  main- 
tain the  connexion  and  subordination  of  the  several  bodies 
in  the  society.  In  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  in  this  cause, 
the  position  is  stated  by  each  of  them,  especially  by  the 
interpleading  parties,  Hendrickson  and  Decow.  To  these 
documents,  as  far  as  the  cause  is  concerned,  it  might  suf- 
fice to  refer,  since  whatever  is  admitted  by  both  parties, 
is,  as  it  respects  them,  incontrovertible.  But  a  recurrence 
to  the  parts  of  the  controversy,  will  show  that  what  is  said 
on  this  topic  in  the  pleadings,  is  the  very  language  and 
sentiment  of  this  whole  religious  community.  For  the 
sake  of  brevity,  I  will  content  myself  with  mentioning  the 
names  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  pages  of  the  printed  vo- 
lumes, whither  anyone  will  resort  who  is  disposed  to  exa- 
mine them  at  large.  Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.62,63,83; 
Samuel  Parsons,  vol.  1.  170;  Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  271, 
272, 31 1  ;  John  Gummere,  vol.  1.  316;  Samuel  Craft,  vol.  1. 
334;  Abraham  Lower,  vol.  1.379,405;  Hallidav  Jack- 
son, vol.  2.  144, 178,  191  ;  Charles  Stokes,  vol.  2.  218, 229; 
Josiah  Gaskill,  vol.  2.  297 ;  James  Brown,  vol.  2.  821,  322. 

From  this  view,  it  seems  to  me  established  beyond  the 
reach  of  doubt,  that  according  to  the  constitution  of  the 
society  of  Friends,  a  preparative  meeting  must  be  sub- 
ordinate to  and  connected  with  a  monthly  meeting,  which 
is  connected  with  and  subordinate  to  a  quarterly  meeting, 
which  again  is  connected  with  and  subordinate  to  a  yearly 
meeting.  There  can  be  no  preparative  meeting  which  is 
not  so  connected  and  subordinate.  To  descend  from  gen- 
erals to  particular-5,  every  preparative  meeting  within  the 
bounds  of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is,  and  must 
be  connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  a  monthly  meet- 
ing connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  a  quarterly  meet- 
ing, which  is  connected  with  and  subordinate  to,  that 
yearly  meeting.  There  can  be  no  preparative  meeting 
within  those  bounds,  which  is  not  so  connected  and  sub- 
ordinate.    From  this  constitutional  principle,  the  follow- 


15 

ing  rule  results  as  a  corollary.  Every  preparative  meet- 
ing within  those  bounds,  which  is,  through  and  by  its  ap- 
propriate links,  connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the 
yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  is  a  "  preparative  meet- 
ing of  the  people  called  Quakers ;"  and  any  preparative 
meeting  or  assemblage  of  persons,  calling  "themselves  a 
preparative  meeting,  not  thus  connected  and  subordinate, 
is  hot  a  preparative  meeting  of  that  people. 

In  laying  down  these  propositions,  I  expressly  avoid, 
and  do  not  propose  to  examine  or  decide,  unless  in  the 
sequel  I  find  it  necessary,  a  question  much  agitated  and  dis- 
cussed, whether  a  monthly  meeting  can  be  laid  down 
without  its  consent.  There  is,  however,  another  proposi- 
tion connected  therewith,  which,  so  as  to  make  use  of  it 
hereafter,  if  necessary,  I  shall  state  barely,  without  a  pro- 
tracted or  tedious  inquiry,  because  I  believe  no  one  will 
gainsay  it.  A  preparative  meeting,  cannot  be  made  or 
constituted  within  the  bounds  of  its  superior,  the  quarterly, 
or  to  speak  more  definitely,  a  new  preparative  meeting 
cannot  be  set  up,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Burlington  quar- 
terly meeting,  without  the  sanction  of  the  latter  body;  that 
is  to  say,  of  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  which  is 
connected  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  yearly  meeting  of 
Philadelphia.  I  avoid,  for  the  present  at  least,  another 
topic,  or  rather,  I  mean,  in  the  propositions  above  stated, 
to  express  no  opinion  upon  it,  whether  a  superior  meeting 
may  control  an  inferior,  in  matters  of  property,  or  of  a 
pecuniary  nature ;  and  also,  another  topic  somewhat  dis- 
cussed in  the  examination  of  the  witnesses,  if  not  by  the 
counsel  on  the  argument,  whether  a  superior  meeting  can, 
without  appeal,  reverse  the  decision  of  an  inferior,  or  take 
cognizance  directly  and  originally,  of  matters  not  coming, 
by  way  of  appeal,  through  the  subordinate  meetings. 

The  general  doctrine  of  the  connexion  and  subordina- 
tion of  meetings  for  business,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show, 
has  been  expressly  applied  to  the  preparative  meeting  of 
Chesterfield.  And  as  this  topic  bears  much  upon  the  re- 
sult of  our  inquiries,  I  must  enter  into  some  detail. 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  in  his  answer,  says,  "  There  have 
been  for  many  years  past,  a  monthly  and  preparative 
meeting,  of  the  said  society  of  Friends  of  Chesterfield .... 
at  Crosswicks  : . . .  that  the  said  meeting  at  Crosswicks,  is 
under  the  control  and  jurisdiction  of  the  said  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia : that  some  oCtbe  members  of  a;  num- 


16 

ber  of  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings,  •which  were  under 
the  control  and  jurisdiction  of  the  regular  and  constitu- 
tional, yearly  meeting,  at  Philadelphia  aforesaid met  at 

Philadelphia,  on  the  third  Monday  in  October,  1827,  and 
then  and  there,  irregularly,  and  contrary  to  discipline, 

formed  a  new  yearly  meeting  of  their  own,  which 

was  adjourned  by  them,  to  the  second  Monday  of  April, 
1828;  just  one  week  before  the  time  of  the  sitting  of  the 
regular  constitutional  yearly  meeting  : that  these  reli- 
gious dissensions  and  divisions  found  their  way  into  the 
meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks  afore- 
said : that  the  '  Hicksite'  party,  and  *  Orthodox'  party 

....there,  hold  separate  and  distinct  meetings,  for  busi- 
ness and  worship,  the  former  being  under  the  jurisdictiott 
and  control  of  the  new  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia 
aforesaid,  to  which  they  have  attached  themselves,  having 
renounced  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  the  ancient  yearly 
meeting  aforesaid  ;  the  latter,  being  under  the  jurisdiction 
and  control  of  the  ancient  j-early  meeting."  Stacy  Decow, 
in  his  answer,  says,  "  that  for  many  years,,  there  has  been 
established,  at  Crosswicks, ....  a  preparative  meeting  of. 
the  religious  society  of  Friends,  or  people  called  Quakers^ 
called  and  known  by  the  name  of  the  Chesterfield  prepa- 
rative meeting  of  Friends,,  held  at  Crosswicks.  There  is 
also  a  monthly  meeting  of  Friends  established  at  the  same 
place.  That  this  delendant  is  now,  and  has  been  for 
twenty  years  and  upwards,  a  member  of  the  said  several 
meetings : that  the  said  Chesterfield  preparative  meet- 
ing of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  to  which  he  belongs,  is  the 
same  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  under 

whose  care,  the  said  school  fund  was  placed  : that  the 

said  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Cross- 
wicks, of  which  this  defendant  is  a  member,  holds  com- 
munication with  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  established 
in  Philadelphia,  which  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson  in 
his  original  bill,  improperly  calls  the  '  Hicksite'  party,..,.. 
and  which  yearly  meeting  this  defendant  insists,  is  the 
yearly  meeting  of  the  ancient  and  true  society  of  Friends. 
He  denies  that  the  society  of  Friends  to  which  he  belongs, 
have  seceded  from  the  faith,  the  religious  institutions  or 
government  of  the  ancient  and  religious  society  of  Friends, , 
or  from  the  ancient  legitimate  yearly  meeting  at  Philadel- 
phia ;  but  the  time  of  holding  it  has  been  changed  from 
ihe  third  second  day  in  the  fourth  month,  to  the  second 


n 

second  day  of  the  same, .,,.  tfiere  being  no  constitutionaf 
time  for  the  assembling  of  the  yearly  meeting,  the  time  of 

holding  it  was  changed  to  the  time  it  is  now  held 

The  said  yearly  meeting  assembled  again  on  the  said  se- 
cond second  day  in  the  fourth  month,  1828,  and  is  now 
settled  on  its  ancient  foundations  and  principles.  This 
defendant  therefore  denies  that  it  is  a  new  yearly  meeting 
within  the  pale  of  one  already  in  existence." 

The  testimony  on  this  subject,  of  some  of  the  witnesses, 
is  to  the  following  effect.  John  Gummere,  vol.  1.  Evid. 
315,  "  Burlington  monthly  meeting,  is  a  subordinate  branch 
of  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  which  quarter  is  subor- 
dinate to  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting."  Ibid.  318, 
"That  yearly  meeting ....  is  held  annually,  on  the  third 
second  day  of  the  fourth  month,  at  Arch  street  meeting 
house,  in  Philadelphia."  Samuel  Craft,  vol.  I.  Evid.  334, 
says,  "  From  my  earliest  recollection,  I  have  been  a  mem- 
ber of  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  and  for  about  thirty- 
six  years  past,  I  have  been  a  member  of  Chesterfield 
monthly  meeting.  This  monthly  and  quarterly  meeting, 
now  are,  and  have  been,  during  all  that  period,  subordi- 
nate branches  of  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting,  held  for 
many  years  past  in  the  meeting  house  on  Arch  street,  on 
the  third  second  day  in  the  fourth  month,  annually." 
Josiah  Gaskill,  vol.  2.  Evid.  297,  says,  "The  monthly 
meeting,  which  I  am  a  member  of,  does  consider  itself 
members  of  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  which  consid- 
ers itself  members  of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  held 
in  Philadelphia,  on  the  second  second  day  of  fourth  month, 
at  Green  street."  Ibid.  301,  "The  Burlington  quarterly 
meeting ....  held  at  Chesterfield have  sent  representa- 
tives to  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  held  in  Philadel- 
phia, in  fourth  month  ever  since ....  the  second  second 
day  in  fourth  moiith  ....  at  Green  street,  instead  o^  Ai'ch 
street.     The  yearly  meeting  at  Green  street,  I  consider 

the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends and  because  it  is  the 

same  yearly  meeting  which,  prior  to  1827,  had  been  held 
in  Arch  street."  James  Brown,  vol.  2.  Evid.  321,  says, 
"  These  quarterly,  monthly,  and  preparative  meetings,  are 

but  parts  of  the  one  great  whole,  the  yearly  meeting 

The  Chesterfield  monthly  and  preparative  meetings  were 
component  parts  of  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting. 
The  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  was  a  branch  of  the 
yearly  meeting,  which,  in  fourth  month,  1827,  was,  and' 
17* 


1« 

for  many  years  before  had  been  held  in  Arch  street,  Philf 
adelphia."  ....  He  "  attended  most  part  of  the  yearly 
meeting  in  Arch  street,  1827,  as  a  member  of  the  society, 
and  belonging  to  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting."  Ibid.  322, 
"  We  have  not  attached  ourselves,  as  I  apprehend,  to  any 
other  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,  that  is  reorganized, 
and  held  on  the  second  second  day  in  fourth  month,  annu- 
ally  We  do  not  consider  ourselves  members  of  the 

yearly  meeting  held  there  (in  Arch  street)  since  1827." 
"That  portion  of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting 

which continues  to  hold   that   meeting  at  the  usual 

times  and  places;"  (that  is  to  say,  the  preparative  meet- 
ing whereby  Decow  was  appointed  treasurer  of  the 
school  fund,  as  is  elsewhere  shown  and  expressed)  "  ac- 
knowledge themselves,  or  claim  to  be,  a  part  of  the 
monthly  meeting  w  hich ....  still  continues  a  member  of 
the  Green  street  yearly  meeting."  The  testimony  of  the 
last  witness,  James  Brown,  demands  peculiar  attention 
from  the  station  he  held,  as  clerk  of  the  preparative  meet- 
ing of  which  Decow  is  a  member,  and  from  the  confi- 
dence reposed  in  that  officer  By  the  usages  of  the  society, 
and  the  intimate  knowledge  he  must  acquire  and  possess 
of  the  acts,  connexions,  and  sentiments  of  the  meeting. 

It  thus  appears  there  were  and  are,  two  distinct  bodies, 
each  claiming  to  be  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting 
of  Friends  at  Crosswicks,  and  each  claiming  to  be  the 
same  meeting  under  whose  care  the  school  fund  was 
placed,  and  yet,  de  jure,  remains.  I  stop  here  a  moment, 
to  fix  the  time  when  these  bodies  were  distinctjy  and  sep- 
arately organized,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  it  was 
before  the  appointment  of  Decow,  as  treasurer  of  the 
school  fund.  And  on  account  of  the  connexion,  it  may 
be  useful  to  look  also,  to  the  higher  meetings.  The  sep- 
aration in  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting  appears  to 
have  occurred  in  the  eleventh  month,  1827.  Samuel  Em- 
len,  vol.  1.  Evid.  325;  Josiah  Gaskill,  vol.  2.  Evid.  301; 
Charles  Stokes,  vol.  2.  Evid.  207.  The  latter  witness  says, 
he  "  attended  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting  in  the 
eleventh  month,  1827.  At  that  meeting  a  separation  did. 
take  place."  And  in  answer  (229)  to  this  question,  "After 
the  separation  of  which  you  have  spoken,  in  1827,  did 
your  quarterly  meeting  consider  itself  as  a  constituei^t 
branch  of  the  yearly  meeting  held  at  Arch  street,  Phila- 
delphia, or).^g  third  second  day  of  fpurth  month?"    IJft 


19 

answered,  "  The  quarterly  meeting  considered  itself  a 
constituent  branch  of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia, 
which  had  been  held  some  years  previously  at  the  Arch 
street  house,  on  the  third  second  day  of  fourth  month; 
but  which,,  owing  to  the  circumstances  which  had  grown 
out  of  the  unsettled  and  divided  state  of  society,  it  was 
concluded,  should  be  held  on  the  second  second  day  of 
fourth  month," 

The  separation  in  the  monthly  meeting  at  Chesterfield, 
or  the  session  of  two  distinct  bodies,  and  the  transaction 
of  business  separately  by  these  bodies,  took  place  as  early 
as  ninth  or  tenth  month,  1827.  Samuel  Emlen.  vol.  1.. 
Evid.  324,  328,  331 ;  Samuel  Craft,  vol.  1.  Evid.  336,  337 ; 
Josiah  Gaskill,  vol.  2.  Evid.  284.  He  fixes  the  time,  the 
tenth  month,  1827,  and  says  "  There  did  a  separation  take 
place  in  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting  in  that  month."  He 
farther  states,  (296)  that  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting 
with  which  he  was  united,  did  at  their  meeting  in  that 
month,  appoint  representatives  on  behalf  of  that  meeting, 
to  attend  the  contemplated  yearly  meeting  to  be  held  in 
Philadelphia,  in  that  same  month  ;  and  in  this  respect  heis^ 
fully  supported  by  the  book  of  minutes,  which  is  before  us 
as  an  exhibit;  and  he  farther  testifies,  that  the  representa- 
tives, with  one  exception,  attended  the  yearly  meeting  in, 
the  tenth  month,  1827. 

The  separation  in  the  preparative  meeting  of  Chester- 
field, bears  date  in  the  twelfth  month,  1827.  Samuel  Em- 
len, vol.  1.  Evid.  325 ;  Samuel  Craft,  vol.  1.  Evid.  339,  347  ; 
Josiah  Gaskill,  vol.  2.  Evid.  286.  The  latter  witness  says, 
(287)  that  after  those  who  separated,  left  the  preparative 
meeting,  the  meeting  proceeded  in  first  month,  1828,  to- 
appoint  trustees  of  the  school  fund,  and  that  Decow  was 
appointed  treasurer  at  the  same  meeting..  The  testimony 
of  James  Brown  i&  very  explicit  and  satisfactory  on  this 
topic,  and  its  importance,  from  the  station  he  held  as  clerk 
of  the  meeting,  has  been  already  suggested.  He  says,  vol. 
2.  Evid.  323,  that  tJie  appointment  of  Stacy  Decow  as 
treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  was  made  after  the  time 
when  the  separation  of  the  preparative  meeting  of  Ches-. 
terfield  into  two  bodies  or  meetings,  each  calling  them-, 
selves  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meetings  took  place.. 

It  thus  clearly  appears,  that  before  the  appointment  of 
Decow  as  treasurer,  there  were  formed  and  existed,  two 
distinct  bodies,  claiming;  to  be  the  Chesterfield  preparative- 


20 

meeting  of  Friends ;  the  one  of  them  connected  with  a 
body  calling  itself  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of  Friends 
of  Philadelphia,  which  holds  its  sessions  on  the  third  second 
day  of  April  in  a  meeting  house  on  Arch  street,  and  the 
other,  and  by  which  Decow  was  appointed,  which  dis- 
claims all  connexion  with  the  above  mentioned  yearly 
meeting,  is  connected  with  another  body  calling  itself  the 
ancient  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadelphia,  which 
holds  its  sessions  on  the  second  second  day  of  April  in  a 
meeting  house  on  Green  street.  It  also  appears  there  are 
two  separate  bodies,  styling  themselves  and  claiming  to  be, 
the  ancient  and  constitutional  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of 
Philadelphia.  There  is,  however,  and  there  can  be,  as  is 
asserted  and  admitted  by  all,  but  one  ancient  yearly  meet- 
ing, and  but  one  body  entitled  to  that  appellation.  This 
truth  is  distinctly  admitted  by  the  pleadings  of  the  par- 
ties; it  is  plainly  asserted  by  the  book  of  discipline,  which 
all  who  claim  to  be  of  the  society  of  Friends,  as  do  all  the 
parties,  and  if  my  memory  is  correct,  all  the  witnesses,  in 
the  cause,  unqualifiedly  admit  to  be  their  standard  and  their 
guide  ;  and  it  is  testified  by  several  of  the  witnesses,  whose 
depositions  I  have  already  noticed ;  to  which  may  be 
added  that  of  Halliday  Jackson,  an  intelligent  and  well 
informed  witness  examined  on  the  part  of  Decow,  vol.  2. 
Evid.  155. 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  inquiry,  which  of  these  two 
bodies  or  meetings  is  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  of 
Friends  of  Philadelphia  ;  an  inquiry  which,  if  I  may  judge 
from  my  own  feelings  and  reflections,  is  of  the  deepest  in- 
terest and  importance.  There  is,  and  can  be  bi]t  one 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  the  society  of  F'riends. 
There  is,  and  can  be  but  one  yearly  meeting.  A 
preparative  meeting  must  be  connected  with  the  year- 
ly meeting  of  Philadelphia,  and  without  such  connexion, 
no  assemblage  is  a  preparative  meeting.  One  of  these 
bodies,  or  preparative  meetings,  is  connected  with  the 
one,  and  the  other  with  the  other  of  the  yearly  meet- 
ings. Which  then  is  the  yearly  meeting?  Or  to  con- 
fine our  inquiry  within  the  only  requisite  range,  is  the 
'meeting  or  body  assembling  on  the  second  second  day 
of  the  fourth  month  at  Green  street,  the  ancient  yearly 
meeting?  If  it  is,  Decow  is  the  treasurer.  If  not,  as  I 
have  already  shown,  Hendrickson,  once  the  acknowledged 
treasurer  and  the  obligee,  named  aa  such  ia  the.  bond,  is 


entitled  to  the  money.  When  such  consequences  hang  on 
this  question,  may  1  not  call  it  interesting  and  important  ? 
May  I  not  stand  excused,  if  ]  approach  it  with  great 
anxiety  and  deep  solicitude? 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  at  a 
very  early  period  in  the  progress  of  the  settlement  of  New 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  the  number  and  condition  of  the 
followers  of  George  Fox,  or  the  people  called  Quakers,^ 
rendered  it  desirable  they  should  be  brought  under  a  com- 
mon head,  according  to  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment adopted  in  England  and  already  existing  in  some  of 
the  more  ancient  colonies.  In  the  year  1681  or  1685,  (the 
precise  time  seems  to  be  controverted,  and  cannot  influ- 
ence our  present  pursuits,)  a  yearly  meeting  was  estab- 
lished, comprehending  the  provinces  of  New  Jersey  and 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  members  of  that  religious  society 
and  their  already  organized  meetings  and  judicatories  of 
inferior  grades.  This  body  was  not  a  mere  incidenal, 
casual,  disconnected  assemblage,  convening  without  pre- 
vious arrangement,  ceasing  to  exist  when  its  members 
separated  and  formed  anew  when  individuals  came  to- 
gether again  at  some  subsequent  time.  It  was  a  regularly 
organized  and  established  body,  holding  stated  sessions, 
corresponding  with  other  bodies  of  the  same  religious  de^ 
nomination,  consulting  together  for  the  welfare  of  a  por- 
tion of  their  church  and  its  members,  the  ultimate  arbiter 
of  all  differences,  and  the  common  head  and  governor  of 
all  belonging  to  the  society  of  Friends,  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion, which  extended  over  the  territories  just  mentioned, 
while  they  were  called  provinces,  and  since  they  assumed 
the  name  and  rank  of  states.  The  meetings  of  this  body 
were  held  annually,  as  its  name  imports,  and  as  long  and 
steady  usage  has  wrought  into  a  part  of  its  essential 
structure.  The  time  and  place  of  convention  are  subject 
to  its  control,  and  have,  accordingly,  in  several  instances, 
been  fixed  and  altered  by  it.  The  time  and  place,  how- 
ever, when  and  where  only  the  body  can  constitutionally 
assemble  and  act,  must,  when  fixed,  so  remain,  until  "  the 
voice  of  the  body,"  "  in  a  yearly  meeting  capacity," 
which  alone  has  the  power  and  right  "  to  govern  its.  own 
proceedings,"  shall  resolve  on  and  enact  a  change..  Such, 
is  certainly  the  rule  of  constitutional  law,  as  applicable  to 
this  body;  and  such  was  their  own  practical  construction 
of  it   in  the  vear   1798,  when  in  the  conscientious  dig? 


22 

charge  of  duty,  they  assembled,  undeterred  by  the  ra- 
vages of  pestilence  and  the  arrows  of  death.  From  the 
year  1685,  for  nearly  a  century  and  a  half,  this  body  held 
its  periodical  sessions;  for  years,  alternately  at  Burling- 
ton and  Philadelphia,  and  finally  in  the  latter  city  alone ; 
and  there,  successively,  at  their  houses  on  Pine  street,  on 
Keyes'  alley,  and  on  Arch  street.  Changes  in  time  and 
place  have  occurred ;  but  always  by  a  previous  resolve, 
by  "  the  voice  of  that  body,"  "  in  a  yearly  meeting  capa- 
city." In  1811,  the  place  was  fixed  in  the  meeting  house, 
on  Arch  street.  In  1798,  the  time  was  changed  to  the 
third  second  day  of  the  fourth  month  of  each  year  ;  and  by 
the  book  of  discipline,  promulged  by  the  yearly  meeting  in 
1806,  and  as  already  observed,  the  acknf>wledged  constitu- 
tion of  this  religious  community,  the  latter  day  is  declared 
the  period  for  its  convention.  No  other  day  is  mentioned ; 
no  other  day  is  provided  for  under  any  circumstances ; 
nor  is  any  occasional,  intermediate,  or  special  meeting 
authorized. 

In  the  year  1826,  at  the  prescribed  time  and  place,  a 
meeting  w^as  held.  After  the  transaction  of  its  business,  it 
adjourned,  according  to  the  ancient  and  wonted  form,  "  to 
meet  in  the  next  year  at  the  usual  time."  This  body  thus 
convened  and  thus  adjourned,  was,  without  dispute,  the 
Philadelphia  yearly  meeting  of  Friends.  On  the  third 
second  day  of  April,  1827,  at  the  house  on  Arch  street^ 
the  designated  time  and  place,  a  meeting  assembled.  It 
was  composed  of  the  representatives  from  the  several 
quarterly  meetings,  and  of  all  such  individuals  as  inclination 
or  duty  had  brought  together.  The  regular  constituent 
parts  were  there.  Those  who  are  since  so  openly  divided 
by  name,  perhaps  by  feeling,  peradventure  by  principles, 
then  sat  down  together;  one  in  form,  if  not  in  spirit;  in 
unity  of  body,  if  not  of  mind.  The  clerk  of  the  preced- 
ing year,  according  to  ancient  rule,  opened  the  meeting 
in  due  order,  for  however  simple,  there  was,  nev^ertheless, 
an  established  ceremony.  The  representatives  were 
called,  certificates  of  visting  strangers  were  received, 
epistles  from  corresponding  bodies  were  read,  committees 
were  arranged,  the  usual  affairs  of  the  occasion  were 
transacted  in  unity  and  peace.  The  representatives  were, 
in  wonted  manner,  desired  to  abide  for  the  next  step  in 
the  progress  of  business.  This  body  thus  convened,  was 
assuredly  the  yearly  meeting ;  and  up  to  the  close  of  the 


23 

forenoon,  it  sustained  its  constitutional  existence.  If  that 
assemblage  ceased  to  be  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting, 
something  which  occurred  subsequent  to  the  close  of  the 
first  sitting  must  have  wrought  out  that  result. 

Such  result  was  produced,  say  the  defendant,  Decow, 
and  the  meeting  whereby  he  was  appointed  treasurer.  This 
body  ceased  to  be  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends,  was  dis- 
solved, broken  up  "  into  its  individual  elements,"  (Abraham 
Lower,  vol.  1.  Evid,  421,)  and  reorganized,  in  the  ensuing 
autumn,  in  the  yearly  meeting  which  assembled  in  Green 
street,  which  became  invested  with  the  constitutional 
powers  and  rights  incident  to  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meet- 
ing, and,  the  successor,  or  rather  the  continuance  of  the 
same  body,  which  had  been  formed  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  at  Burlington,  and  had  from  thence  conducted  and 
governed  the  affairs  of  the  society,  and  connected  with  it- 
self the  subordinate  meetings,  and  this  whole  religious 
community. 

Our  next  duty  then,  is  to  examine  the  causes  which  are 
alleged  to  have  deprived  this  body  of  constitutional  exis- 
tence. And  these  are,  first,  the  acts  of  the  body  in  a  col- 
lective capacity;  second,  the  omission  of  the  body  to  per- 
form certain  collective  duties;  and  third,  the  designs, 
plans,  views,  feelings  and  acts  of  individual  members. 
Under  one  or  another  of  these,  is  compreliended,  it  is  be- 
lieved, every  opiating  cause  suggested  in  the  pleadings,  in 
the  testimony  of  the  witnesses,  and  in  the  arguments  of 
the  counsel. 

The  only  acts  alleged  against  the  body  in  a  collective 
capacity,  are  two  in  number.  First,  the  appointment  of  a 
clerk  of  the  meeting  ;  and  secondly,  the  appointment,  near 
the  close  of  the  session,  of  a  committee  to  visit  the  subor- 
dinate meetings. 

First,  the  appointment  of  clerk  to  the  meeting.  To  re- 
gard the  act  against  which  this  complaint  is  directed  as 
the  appointment  of  a  clerk,  is  an  entire  misapprehension.  It 
was,  in  truth,  no  more  than  the  continuance  in  office  of 
the  former  clerk;  and  as  it  seems  to  me,  so  far  from  an 
act  of  the  body  in  its  collective  capacity,  in  violation  of 
any  rule,  it  was  a  strict,  and  under  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  meeting  was  placed,  an  unavoidable  compliance 
with,  and  adherence  to,  the  ancient  custom  and  order  of 
the  society. 

According  thereto,  the  nomination  of  clerk  is  to  be 


24 

made,  not  in  or  by  the  meeting  at  large,  but  by  the  repre- 
sentatives, as  they  are  called,  or  in  other  words,  the  per- 
sons deputed  by  the  several  quarterly  meetings  to  attend, 
not  merely  as  individuals,  but  as  the  organs  of  those  meet- 
ings, in  their  official  character. 

The  representatives,  pursuant  to  the  request  already 
mentioned,  remained  at  the  close  of  the  forenoon  session, 
to  discharge  this  duty.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  inquii*e 
into,  or  relate  in  detail,  what  passed  among  them.  In  the 
result,  they  could  not  agree,  or  did  not  agree,  on  the  names 
of  any  persons  to  be  proposed  for  the  offices  of  clerk  and 
assistant ;  and  a  report  to  this  effect  was  made  to  the 
yearly  meeting,  when  it  opened  in  the  afternoon.  No 
nomination  was  offered.  Put,  now,  the  case  in  the  strong- 
est view;  suppose  the  representatives  had  wantonly,  or  in 
neglect  of  their  trust,  omitted  to  propose  names  to  the 
meeting?  Was  all  further  proceeding  at  an  end?  Was  the 
meeting  closed  ?  The  Book  of  Discipline,  it  is  true,  pre- 
scribes no  guide  or  directory  under  such  circumstances. 
But  ancient  custom,  founded  on  the  obvious  dictates  of 
reason,  had  established  in  this  respect  an  operative  law. 
The  clerk  and  his  assistant,  of  the  preceding  year,  were 
to  act,  and  without  any  new  appointment  or  induction, 
were  authorised  to  continue  or  discharge  their  appropriate 
functions,  until  the  names  of  other  persons- were  regularly 
brought  forward,  and  united  with,  or  in  other  words,  ap- 
pointed. In  accordance  therewith,  and  in  view  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  meeting,  and  of  the  difficulty  which  existed, 
an  aged  member  (William  Jackson)  who  had  attended 
more  than  sixty  years,  and  had  thus  acquired  experience, 
perhaps  beyond  an^r  individual  of  the  assembly,  rose  and 
stated,  that  "  it  had  been  always  the  practice  for  the  old 
clerks  to  serve  until  new  ones  were  appointed ;"  and  he 
proposed  to  the  meeting,  "  that  the  present  clerks  should 
be  continued  for  that  year."  (Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid. 
265.)  Some  difference  of  opinion  occurred  and  was  ex- 
pressed, as  to  the  course  most  eligible  to  be  pursued.  Some 
persons  wished  to  refer  the  subject  again  to  the  represen- 
tatives, for  farther  consideration.  "  Several  of  the  re- 
presentatives gave  it  as  their  opinion,  there  would  be  no 
advantage  in  so  referring  it,  as  there  was  not  the  smallest 
probability  that  they  could  agree.  The  first  person  who 
expressed  this  opinion,  was  one  of  those  who  have  since" 
united  with  the  meeting  in  Green  street,  "  and  he  added, 


25 

that  althbugh  he  should  have  been  in  favour  of  a  change 
in  the  clerk,  if  it  could  have  been  satisfactorily  accom- 
phshed,  yet  as  that  was  not  likely  to  be  the  case,  he  thought 
the  meeting  had  better  proceed  with  its  business.  Several 
others  of  the  same  party  expressed  similar  sentiments. 
Meanwhile  a  considerable  number  of  those"  who  remain 
attached  to  the  Arch  street  meeting,  "  expressed  their  ap- 
probation of  the  continuance  of  the  present  clerks,  and  a 
minute  desiri?ig  the  old  clerks  to  continue  to  serve  the  meeting" 
(Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  68,)  was  made  and  read. 
"  On  the  reading  of  the  minute,  some  of  those  who"  now 
belong  to  the  Green  street  meeting,  "still  continued  to  ob- 
ject, when  one  of  their  number  remarked,  he  believed  it 
was  the  best  thing  the  meeting  could  do,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  advised  them  to  submit  to  it,  as  he  did 
not  think  it  would  make  so  much  difference  to  them,  as 
some  of  them  might  imagine.  Similar  sentiments  were 
expressed  by  one  or  two  others  of  that  party,,  and  all  ob- 
jections to  the  appointment  having  ceased,  John  Comly, 
the  assistant  clerk,  was  requested  to  come  to  the  table. 
He  did  not  immediately  do  so,  nor  until  several  of  his 
friends  expressed  that  they  thought  that  the  business  of  the 
meeting  had  better  go  forward."  The  usual  business  then 
proceeded.  This  view,  is  chiefly  extracted  from  the  tes- 
timony of  Thomas  Evans.  It  is  fully  sustained  by  the 
depositions  of  Samuel  Bettle  and  Joseph  Whitall,  and  is, 
in  no  material  point,  impugned  by  any  contradictory 
evidence.  Some  other  witnesses,  who  speak  of  these 
transactions,  are  not  so  full  and  minute  in  detail,  and  some, 
it  is  to  be  regretted,  do  not  recollect  the  occurrences  of 
very  interesting  moments ;  as,  for  example,  one  of  them, 
speaking  of  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day,  and  having  re- 
lated some  of  the  events,  added,  "  The  meeting  proceeded 
on  that  afternoon.  I  don't  remember  particularly  what 
took  place."  (Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  2.  Evid.  54.)  In  their  < 
opinions,  in  their  inferences,  in  their  feelings,  we  observe, 
as  might  be  expected,  a  difference  among  the  witnesses, 
but  it  is  pleasing  to  meet  with  no  suoh  collision  of  facts, 
as  to  render  necessary  the  delicate  and  arduous  duty  of 
weighing  and  comparing  evidence. 

It  is  however  said,  the  greater  number  of  the  represen- 
tatives wished  to  release   the  former  clerk,  and  to  nomi- 
nate another  in  his  stead ;  that  a  proposal  was   made  to 
take  their  sense  by  a  vote  ;  and  that  this  measure,  which 
18 


26 

would  have  resulted  in  a  majority  for  a  new  cferk,  was 
prevented  and  defeated,  by  the  conduct  of  those  who  sought 
to  retain  the  services  of  the  former  officer. 

One  of  the  peculiar  and  distinguishing  characteristics  of 
this  people,  consists  in  their  mode  of  transacting  business 
and  arriving  at  conclusions ;  in  which,  rejecting  totally 
the  principle  that  a  majority,  as  such,  is  to  rule,  or  decide, 
or  govern,  they  arrive  at  an  unity  of  resolution  and  action, 
in  a  mode  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  entirely  different 
from  that  common  to  all  civil  or  political,  and  to  most  ec- 
clesiastical bodies.  They  look  and  wait  for  an  union  of 
mind ;  and  the  result  is  produced,  not  by  a  vote,  or  count 
of  numbers,  but  by  an  yielding  up  of  opinions,  a  deference 
for  the  judgment  of  each  other,  and  an  acquiescence  or 
submission  to  the  measure  proposed.  Where  a  division 
of  sentiment  occurs,  the  matter  is  postponed  for  farther 
consideration,  or  withdrawn  or  dismissed  entirely;  or, 
after  sometimes  a  temperate  discussion,  and  sometimes 
a  silent  deliberation,  those  who  support,  or  those  who  op- 
pose a  measure,  acquiesce  in  the  sense  of  the  meeting  as 
collected  and  minuted  by  the  clerk  ;  and  they  believe  the 
"spirit  of  truth,"  when  the  meeting  is  "  rightly  gathered," 
will  be  transfused  through  their  minds,  and  they  will  be 
guided  and  influenced  "  by  a  wisdom  and  judgment  better 
than  their  own,"  and  that  their  clerk  will  be  led  to  act 
unoer  *'  the  overshadowing  of  that  power,  which  is  not  at 
his  command,  and  which  will  enable  him  to  make  proper 
decisions."  One  of  the  witnesses  examined  on  the  part  of 
Decow  informs  us,  the  clerk,  "  collects,  not  by  an  actual 
count  of  numbers,  or  recording  the  yeas  and  nays,  yet  by 
an  estimate  of  the  prevailing  sense,  which  the  meeting, 
after  discussion,  usually  settles  with  sufficient  distinctness, 
one  way  or  the  other."  (Charles  Stokes,  vol.  2.  Evid.  249.) 
The  account  given  by  Clarkson,  in  his  Portraiture  of 
Quakerism,  is  represented  to  be  correct,  although  never 
expi'fessly  recognized  by  the  society.  "  When  a  subject 
is  brought  before  them,  it  is  canvassed  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  extraneous  matter,  till  some  conclusion  results ;  the 
clerk  of  the  meeting  then  draws  up  a  minute,  containing, 
as  nearly  as  he  can  collect,  the  substance  of  this  conclu- 
sion ;  this  minule  is  then  read  aloud  to  the  auditory,  and 
either  stands  or  undergoes  an  alteration,  as  appears  by  the 
silence  or  discussion  upon  it,  to  be  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing; when  fully  agreed  upon,  it  stands  ready  to  be  re- 


27 

corded."  (1  Clarkwn^s  Portrait.  Quak.  157.)  The  world  at 
large,  and  especially  those  who  have  not  closely  observed 
the  practical  operation  of  these  principles,  in  the  peace 
and  harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  internal  affairs  of  this 
religious  community,  may  be  strongly  inclined  to  call  in 
question  their  expediency.  A  republican  spirit  may  see 
no  just  rule,  but  in  the  voice  of  a  majority.  A  jealousy  of 
power  may  suspect  too  much  confidence  in  the  fairness 
and  candour  of  the  clerk.  But  the  conclusive  answer  to 
all  such  suggestions  and  suspicions  is,  that  they  are  free 
to  act  as  their  judgments  and  consciences  may  dictate. 
We  are  not  to  interfere  with  their  church  government  any 
more  than  with  their  modes  of  faith  and  worship.  We 
are  to  respect  their  institutions,  and  to  sustain  them.  Nor 
can  any  individual  be  hereby  aggrieved.  He  is  under  no 
restraint  to  remain  among  them.  Whenever  he  is  per- 
suaded that  either  their  faith  or  iheir  practice,  does  not 
accord  with  his  own  views  of  reason  and  Scripture,  he  is 
at  liberty  to  leave  them,  and  to  seek  elsewhere,  more 
purity,  more  spirituality,  more  christian  and  Scripture 
order,  more  safety,  more  republicanism,  or  more  peace. 
The  constitution  of  this  society,  neither  recognizes  nor 
makes  provision  for  a  vote,  or  a  decision  on  the  principle 
of  numbers,  in  any  instance  or  predicament.  The  minutes 
and  journals  of  the  various  meetings,  not  merely  within 
the  bounds  of  this  yearly  meeting,  but  within  the  pale  of 
the  whole  society,  do  not  furnish,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to 
learn,  a  single  record  of  a  vote  taken,  or  a  count  of  num- 
bers. The  instances  of  reports  made  by  the  major  part 
of  committees,  form  no  exception  to  the  universality  of 
this  rule  of  action.  Nor  do  the  few,  I  say  few  emphati- 
cally, compared  with  the  myriads  of  decisions  standing  on 
their  records,  nor  do  the  few  minutes,  which  industry  has 
gleaned  up,  of  expressions  like  these:  "the  greatest  part 
of  Friends  think  it  best,"  or  "  it  appears  to  be  the  most 
general  sense,"  serve  to  show  that  a  vote  was  taken,  or 
that  numbers,  as  such,  prevailed,  or  that  the  minor  part 
did  not  freely  relinquish  their  views,  and  cordially  acquiesce 
in  those  of  the  greater  part.  Let  us,  for  example,  look  to 
the  minutes  of  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  of  sixth 
month,  1691,  because  it  is,  of  Chesterfield,  and  of  very 
ancient  date.  "  The  building  of  the  meetinghouses  being 
taken  into  consideration,  a  meeting  house  on  this  side  is 
generally  agreed  upon  to  be  built,  and  the  greatest  part  of 


28 

Friends  think  it  best  to  have  it  at  the  grave  yard."  Here* 
is  no  allusion  to  a  vote,  nor  any  thing  to  indicate  that  all 
did  not  acquiesce  in  what  the  greatest  part  thought  best. 
Barclay,  in  his  treatise  on  church  government,  gives  the 
following  explanation,  and  most  pointedly  condemns  the 
rule  of  the  greatest  number.  "  The  only  proper  judge  of 
controversies  in  the  church,  is  the  spirit  of  God  ;  and  the 
power  of  deciding  lies  solely  in  it,  as  having  the  only  un- 
erring, infallible  and  certain  judgment  belonging  to  it  j 
which  infallibility  is  not  necessarily  annexed  to  any  per- 
sons, person  or  place,  whatever,  by  virtue  of  any  office, 
place  or  station  any  one  may  have,  or  have  had,  in  the 
body  of  Christ ;  that  is  to  say,  that  any  have  ground  to 
reason  thus,  because  I  am,  or  have  been,  such  an  eminent 
member,  therefore  my  judgment  is  infallible,  or  because 
we  are  the  greatest  number."  {Barclay  on  Church  Govern- 
ment, 78.)  Hence  then,  I  think,  we  are  not  called  to  inquire 
how  far  the  allegation  as  to  the  relative  num.bers  of  the 
representatives  is  correct,  and  we  may  justly  dismiss  from 
farther  consideration,  the  objection  that  the  old  clerk  would 
not  have  received  a  majority  of  votes.  The  very  propo- 
sal to  take  a  vote,  was  an  overture  to  depart,  and  the  con- 
summation of  it  would  have  been  a  departure,  from  an 
ancient  and  unvaring  practice,  which  had  not  only  grown 
up  to  an  overshadowing  tree,  but  had  its  root  in  religious 
faith,  and  was  nourished  and  sustained  by  religious  feeling. 

The  inquiry  too,  is  of  little  importance,  since,  as  I  have 
shown,  the  omission  of  the  representatives  to  agree  in,  and 
propose  a  nomination,  only  resulted  in  a  continuance  of 
the  former  officers,  and  did  neither  abridge,  impair  or  de- 
stroy, the  power  of  the  meeting  to  provide  for  collecting 
and  recording  their  acts  and  proceedings. 

Let  us,  then,  return  to  the  yearly  meeting.  Here  again 
it  is  said,  a  majority  was  opposed  to  the  farther  service  of 
the  former  clerk,  and  his  continuance  contrary  to  their 
will,  was  not  only  an  oppression  of  the  few  over  the  many, 
but  was  in  fact  a  dissolution  of  the  body.  I  am  not  able 
to  say,  from  the  evidence,  if  in  any  wise  material,  that 
even  at  the  outset,  this  continuance  was  inconsistent  with 
the  wishes  of  the  greater  part  of  the  meeting.  But  if  such 
were  the  truth,  it  is  abundantly  shown,  there  was  an  ac- 
quiescence in  the  measure,  even  if  an  unwilling  one.  And 
this  acquiescence  was  brought  about  by  the  agency  and 
recommendation  of  some  of  those,  who  are  now  the  mem* 


29. 

bers  of  the  rival  yearly  meetfng.  The  f()ITo wing  facts  are 
stated  by  the  witnesses.  "  A  proposition  came  from  a 
leading  member,"  (Joseph  Whitall,  vol.  1.  Evid.  21"8.)  Af- 
ter the  minute  was  read,  "  one  of  their  number  expressed 
his  belief  it  was  the  best  thing  the  meeting  could  do  under 
all  the  circumstances,  and  advised  them  to  submit  to  it." 
(Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  2G6.)  "  One,  and  perhaps, 
there  were  others,  stated  as  their  belief,  it  would  be  right, 
and  encouraged  his  friends  to  accede  to  the  proposition" 
for  the  continuance  of  the  former  clerks.  (Joseph  Whitall^ 
vol.  1.  Evid.  217.)  "Eflbrts  were  made  by  persons,  who 
have  since"  united  with  the  Green  street  meeting,  "to  in- 
duce an  acquiescence  with  the  minute.  At  length,  all 
onposition  ceased."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  69.,} 
here,  then,  might  have  been  opposition  and  dissatisfaction 
at  the  outset.  But  it  is  clear  there  was  an  ultimate  acqui- 
escence. And  it  is  too  much  for  any  one,  especially  for 
those  who  took  an  active  and  influential  part  in  bringing 
about  this  result,  perhaps  we  may  say,  actually  induced 
the  peaceful  result,  to  make  it  the  subject  of  complaint,  or 
to  insist  that  the  existence  of  the  body  was  thereby  de- 
stroyed. 

There  is  another  fact  worthy  of  much  consideration,  i» 
looking  into  the  propriety  of  these  proceedings,  which  is, 
that  no  person,  save  Samuel  Bettle,  the  former  clerk,  was 
proposed  for  the  office.  The  importance  of  this  circunn- 
stance  in  civil  affairs,  is  thus  shown  in  the  recent  Ameri- 
can treatise  on  the  law  of  corporations.  "  Where  a  ma- 
jority protest  against  the  election  of  a  proposed  candidate, 
and  do  not  propose  any  other  candidate,  the  minority 
may  elect  the  candidate  proposed."  Angel  and  Ames  on 
Corp.  67. 

After  all  these  events,  I  can  have  no  hesitation  in  yield- 
ing to  the  entire  and  unqualified  conviction,  that  the  body 
remained  in  its  pristine  vigour,  and  proceeded  to  business 
as  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

The  other  act,  whereby  it  is  said,  the  discipjline  was 
violated,  the  society  separated,  and  the  constitutional  exist- 
ence of  the  yearly  meeting  destroyed,  is  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  to  visit  the  subordinate  meetings. 

It  would  be  very  difficult,  I  think,  to  demonstrate,  that 

an  act  of  this  nature,  if  not  warranted  by  the  discipline, 

or  even  if  inconsistent  with  it,  could  work  such  sweeping 

results.     The  purpose  and  authority  of  this  committee, 

18* 


30 

■were  simply  to  visit,  counsel  and  advise  the  inferior  meet' 
ings,  with  no  power,  whatever,  to  act  upon  or  control  the 
rights  or  interests  of  any  one,  save  by  measures  of  per- 
suasion. How  far  the  temper  or  motive,  which  led  to  the 
appointment  of  this  committee  may  have  been  reprehen- 
sible, I  shall  examine  under  another  head.  It  is  to  the  act 
alone,  that  my  attention  is  now  directed ;  and  the  act  it- 
self, was,  in  its  nature,  harmless.  Let  us,  however,  look 
more  closely  into  the  circumstances.  They  are  thus  re- 
presented by  one  of  the  witnesses.  "  A  proposition  was 
brought  from  the  women's  meeting  ....  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee to  visit  the  quarterly  and  monthly  meetings.  This 
called  forth  a  great  deal  of  excitement, and  great  op- 
position was  made  to  it.  Even  some  few  of  the  '  Ortho- 
dox' party  themselves  did  not,  at  first,  appear  to  approve 
of  it.  But  there  were  others  of  that  party  that  strenuously 
urged  the  propriety  of  such  a  committee  being  appointed, 
and  as  they  seemed  to  understand  one  another  pretty  well, 
apparently,  they  pretty  soon  united  in  urging  the  measure. 
It  was,  hoavever,  strongly  opposed  by  much  the  larger 
part  of  the  meeting,  I  cannot  undertake  to  state  the  pro- 
portions, but  I  should  think  myself  safe,  in  saying  two 
thirds  of  those  that  spoke.     But  it  seemed  all  of  no  avail, 

and  having  a  clerk  at  the  table  subject  entirely  to  the 

dictates  of  his  party,  he  made  a  minute  and  took  down 
the  names  of  the  committee  that  were  oflfered  to  him.  No 
Friend,  I  believe,  undertook  to  mention  a  name."  (Haliiday 
Jackson,  vol.  2.  Evid.  56.)  Another  witness  gives  the  fol- 
lowing re])resentation.  "At  the  last  sitting  on  seventh 
day  morning,  a  proposition  was  introduced  from  the  wo- 
men's meeting  to  appoint  a  committee  to  visit  the  respec- 
tive subordinate  meetings  for  their  strength  and  encour- 
agement. To  this  there  was  a  decided  objection  made; 
some  Friends  then  in  the  meeting  and  now  attached  to 
each  of  the  parties,  opposed  it.  The  doubt  of  some  was, 
that  it  had  better  not  be  decided  at  that  time ;  with  others, 
there  was  a  decided  opposition  to  the  measure.  At  this 
juncture,  a  Friend  stated  to  the  meeting  the  out  door  pro- 
ceedings, the  private  meetings,  and  opened  the  whole  sub- 
ject. It  appeared  to  me  evidently,  to  create  uneasiness 
and  alarm  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  been  concerned 
in  those  meetings ;  some  of  them  called  in  question  the 
accuracy  of  the  statement  that  had  been  made,  and  seem- 
ed disposed  to  deny  it ;  some  did  deny  it ;  others,  how- 


3r 

ever,  said  that  the  general  statement  was  correct,  aiid 
acknowledged  it.  The  propriety  of  appointing  a  commit-- 
tee  under  such  circumstances,  appeared  so  very  obvious, 
that  the  opposition,  in  a  great  measure,  ceased  for  that 
time;  after  which  there  was  a  greater  and  more  general 
expression  of  uhity  with  the  measure,  than"  the  witness, 
a  clerk  of  several  years'  experience,  "had  often,  if  ever, 
seen  or  heard."  "  I  had,"  says  the  witness,  "been  watch- 
ing the  course  of  events,  as  clerk  of  the  meeting,  to  know 
how  to  act,  and  when  all  opposition  had  ceased,  and  it 
was  very  apparent  it  was  the  sense  of  the  meeting  that 
the  appointment  should  be  made,  I  rose  and  stated  that  I 
had  had  my  doubts,  when  this  proposition  was  first  brought 
in,  whether  it  was  expedient  to  adopt  it  at  that  time,  but 
as  the  servant  of  the  meeting,  it  being  manifestly  its  sense, 
I  should  now  proceed  to  make  the  minute,  and  accordingly 
made  it,  and  united  with  ihem  in  their  views;  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  pursuant  to  the  minute."  (Samuel 
Bottle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  69.)  Whatever  difference  may  be  in- 
these  statements  as  to  matters  of  opinion  ;  whatever  sus- 
picions may  have  been  enkindled;  whatever  motives  or 
designs  may  be  imputed,  here  is  no  substantial  discrepancy 
as  to  points  of  fact. 

Was  then,  the  appointment  of  such  a  committee,  a  novel, 
and  therefore,  an  alarming  occurrence?  More  than  one 
witness  testifies,  and  no  one  denies,  that  it  was  an  ancient 
custom  of  the  society.  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  70. 
Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  2.  Evid.  133.)  Ha4  the  meeting 
power  to  make  such  appointment?  Aside  of  the  multitude 
of  unquestioned  precedents,  a  witness  says,  "during  the 
discussion  of  the  proposition,  there  was  no  suggestion  of  a 
doubt  of  the  right  and  power  of  the  yearly  ineeting  to  ap- 
point such  committee ;  the  difference  of  opinion  was  con- 
fined to  the  expediency  of  makiiig  the  appointment  at  that 
time."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  70.)  Was  the  purpose 
of  the  appointment  laudable?  It  was  to  advise  and  coun- 
sel the  inferior  meetings,  in  the  language  of  one  of  the 
witnesses,  "  for  their  strength  and  encouragement."  And 
if  the  design  was  to  prevent  schism  and  separation,  the  end 
was,  surely,  commendable ;  and  if  the  measures  taken  to 
attain  it,  were  otherwise,  the-  censure  should  rest  on  the 
committee,  the  agents,  and  not  on  the  meeting,  the  con- 
stituents. Was  partially  exercised  by  the  clerk,  or  any 
other  person,  in  the  selection  of  the  committee?  No  name 


aar 

which  was  proposed  was  rejected.  Was  there  opposition 
to  the  appointment?  Strong  and  decided  at  the  outset. 
Was  there  at  length,  an  acquiescence?  "A  greater  and 
more  general  expression  of  unity  than  usual,"  says  one 
witness.  "The  opposition  pretty  generally,  if  not  alto- 
gether ceasing,"  says  another  witness,  "  the  meeting  pro- 
ceeded to  appoint."  (Joseph  Whitall,  vol.  1.  Evid.  218.) 
Another  says,  "  As  all  opposition  ceased,  a  minute  was 
made,  and  the  committee  appointed."  (Thomas  Evans, 
vol.  1.  Evid.  268.)  These  matters  of  fact,  are,  I  believe, 
uncontradicted.  One  of  the  witnesses,  indeed,  intimates 
that  the  clerk  made  the  minute,  being  subject  entirely  to 
the  dictates  of  his  own  party.  But  the  clerk,  himself,, 
whose  veracity  and  candour  are  not  only  above  reproach, 
but  beyond  suspicion,  and  who  surely  best  knew  his  own 
motive  of  action,  says,  that  though  doubting  at  first  the 
expediency  of  the  measure,  he  made  the  minute,  as  the 
servant  of  the  meeting,  and  because  it  was  manifestly  their 
sense  that  the  appointment  should  take  place. 

Upon  a  careful  examination  of  this  measure,  I  can  see 
nothing,  either  in  the  act  itself,  or  in  the  manner  of  its  in- 
ception, progress  or  adoption,  subversive,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  of  usage  or  discipline,  and  least  of  all,  any  thing 
of  such  vital  influence  as  to  break  asunder  the  bonds  of 
union,  disfranchise  the  meeting,  deprive  it  of  constitutional 
existence,  disrobe  it  of  ability  farther  to  execute  its  ancient 
and  appropriate  functions,  or  to  release  from  their  alle- 
giance all  those  who  previously  owed  feaUy  and  submis- 
sion to  it. 

These,  then,  are  all  the  overt  acts  of  the  meeting,  which 
have  been  made  the  subject  of  complaint.  It  would,  how- 
ever, be  a  great  error  to  suppose  that  a  session  of  five  or 
six  days  was  spent  in  these  matters,  alone.  Much  other 
important  business  was  transacted  ;  all,  I  believe,  it  may 
be  said,  of  the  usual  stated  duties  were  discharged.  Hal- 
liday  Jackson,  gives  the  following  brief  but  satisfactory' 
account  of  what  was  done.  "  The  business  of  the  yearly 
meeting  was  proceeded  in  ;  and  the  usual  subjects  that  oc- 
cupy that  body,  such  as  considering  the  state  of  the  so- 
ciety from  the  answers  to  the  queries  that  are  brought  up 
from  the  different  quarterly  meetings  in  their  reports ;  the 
reading  of  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings ;  read- 
ing reports  from  the  comtpittee  who  stood  charged  with 
Wcstown  school,  and  some  other  matters ;  which  occupie<$ 


33 

the  meeting  through  the  week."  (vol.  2.  Evid.  55.)  Another 
witness  says,  "All  the  business  usually  transacted  at  a 
yearly  meeting,  was  gone  through  with,  and  several  acts 
consummated,  which  no  other  body  than  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia  was  competent  to  perform."  (Thomas 
Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  2G7.) 

Having  thus  reviewed  what  was  done,  we  are  now  to 
turn  our  attention  to  what  was  not  done  by  the  meeting ; 
for  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former,  has  been  urged  as  an 
act  of  separation  and  disfranchisement  of  the  yearly 
meeting. 

Certain  subjects,  regularly  brought  before  that  body, 
were  not  acted  upon,  but  postponed.  "  When  the  reports," 
says  one  of  the  witnesses,  "  were  taken,  or  the  subjects 
contained  in  the  reports,  from  the  different  quarterly  meet- 
ings, which  were  considered  as  new  matter ;  such  as  the 
account  from  the  southern  quarter  respecting  the  meeting 
for  sufferings,  rejecting  their  representatives,  and  an  ap- 
plication, 1  think,  from  Bucks'  quarter,  respecting  the  man- 
ner of  choosing  representatives  to  constitute  the  meeting- 

for  sufferings,  together  with two  cases  that  came  up 

from  Philadelphia  quarter They  were  all  put  by,  and;> 

not  acted  upon,  except  the  matter  in  relation  to  Leonard 
Snowdon's  case,  which  if  I  remember  right,  was  returned 
to  the  quarterly  meeting.  It  seemed  to  be  pretty  gene- 
rally understood,  that  the  meeting  was  not  in  a  qualified 
state,  owing  to  the  interruptions  to  the  harmony  that  had 
taken  place,  to  enter  upon  the  investigation,  or  more  pro- 
perly, the  consideration  of  these  subjects."  (Halliday  Jack- 
son, vol.  2.  Evid.  55.)  It  should  be  observed  in  general, 
that  these  subjects  were  not  the  regular  stated  busines.s  of 
the  meeting,  but  occasional  or  special.  In  this  remark,  I 
do  not  mean  to  deny  or  detract  from  their  importance,  or 
the  propriety  of  their  having,  at  a  suitable  season,  the  most 
careful  attention,  but  simply  to  show  their  real  nature  and 
character ;  and  that  to  act  on  or  omit  them  could  not 
touch  any  vital  part  of  the  constitution  of  this  body.  A 
much  more  important  consideration,  is  that  the  disposition 
of  these  subjects,  the  course  which  was  adopted  and  purn. 
sued  in  respect  to  them,  was  the  united  act,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  common  wish,  of  all  parties,  of  even  those  by 
whom,  or  through  whose  instrumentality,  they  were 
brought  before  the  meeting.  This  important  fact  is  denied 
by  no  witness,  and  is  expressly  declared  by  more  than  one* 


34 

The  statement  of  one  T  have  just  now  given.  Farther  be- 
ing asked,  if  the  subject  from  the  southern  quarter  vv'as  not 
dismissed  at  the  suggestion  of  Robert  Moore,  a  member 
from  that  quarter,  he  answered,  "  When  that  subject  was 
brought  before  the  yearly  meeting,  it  was  drawing  towards 
the  close  of  the  week,  and  by  that  time  it  was  evident  the 
yearly  meeting  was  not  in  a  qualified  state  to  act  upon 
any  important  subject;  and  therefore,  that  subject,  as 
well  as  two  others,  were  dismissed  without  being  much 
urged  by  Friends.  I  have  not  a  clear  recollection,  but  it 
seems  to  me,  that  Robert  Moore  did  say  something  about 
that  subject  from  the  southern  quarter."  Being  asked  if 
the  subjects  from  Bucks  and  Abington  were  not  dismissed 
at  the  instance  of  John  Comly,  he  answered,  "  I  have  no 
recollection  of  who  spoke  first  on  the  subject ;  John  Comly 
was  sensible  of  the  state  the  yearly  meeting  was  in; 
and  I  can  state  what  I  have  frequently  heard  John  Comly 
say,  that  Samuel  Bettle  first  suggested  to  him  the  pro]>riety 
of  having  those  subjects  dismissed,  all  those  subjects  that 
came  up  in  the  reports,  and  wished  John  Comly  to  use  his 
influence  with  his  friends  to  have  those  subjects  from 
Bucks  and  Abington  dismissed,  and  he,  Samuel  Betile,^ 
would  use  his  influence  with  his  friends  to  have  that  sub- 
ject passed  over  that  was  coming  up  from  Philadelphia 
quarter;  which  subjects  it  was  appreliended,  w^ould  pro- 
duce a  great  deal  of  excitement  in  the  yearly  meeting,  and 
>  which  Samuel  Bettle  feared  the  consequences  of;  but  how 
far  that  influenced  John  Comly  in  favour  of  putting  off" 
those  subjects,  I  cannot  say."  (Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  2. 
Evid.  132.)  Another  witness,  Abraham  Lower,  being  asked 
whether  the  propositions  from  Bucks  and  the  southern 
quarter,  were  not  disposed  of,  at  the  instance  of  members 
from  those  quarters  respectively,  and  who,  since  the  sepa- 
ration, have  joined  that  portion  of  the  society  with  which 
he  was  in  unity,  answered,  "  I  have  no  recollection  of 
the  members  of  those  quarters  making  such  a  proposition, 
but  I  should  think  it  quite  probable."  (Abraham  Lower, 
vol.  1.  Evid.  392.)  And  the  same  witness,  in  another 
place,  testified,  "  as  that  yearly  meeting  was  acknow- 
ledged not  qualified  to  enter  upon  the  matters  brought 
up  from  the  quarters,  that  case  with  others  was  con- 
cluded not  to  be  attended  to."  (Abraham  Lower,  vol.  L 
Evid.  373.)  Samuel  Bettle  says  he  mentioned  to  John 
ComI V,  "  Had  you  not  better  withdraw  the  proposition 


35 

for  a  change,  .  .  .  coming  from  Bucks,  Abington,  and  the 
southern  quarter?  He  said  he  thought  so  too,  united  with 
me  fully  in  that  view,  and  said  they  had  better  be  with- 
drawn, as  it  was  not  likely  they  would  ever  be  adopted, 
and  would  only  occasion  confusion  and  difficulty.  The 
propositions,  when  again  brought  before  the  meeting,  were 
withdrawn  by  common  consent."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1. 
Evid.  69.)  Thomas  Evans  testifies  thus,  "  Those  subjects 
were  all  connected  with,  or  had  grown  out  of  the  contro- 
versy, respecting  the  doctrines  of  Elias  Hicks,  and  as  there 
was  a  general  understanding  that  his  friends  were  about 
to  separate  and  form  a  society  of  their  own,  those  sub- 
jects were  at  their  suggestion,  or  by  their  consent  refer- 
red to  the  meetings  from  which  they  had  come,  or  sus- 
pended." (Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  276.)  "  In  the 
disposition  of  these  subjects,  there  was  a  united  conclu- 
sion of  the  meeting,  after  as  full  an  expression  of  opinion 
as  is  usual ;  and  those  that  took  part  in  this  business,  some 
now  belong  to  the  new  meeting,  and  others  remained  with 
the  old  society,  and  participated  with  the  deliberations  of 
the  meeting  which  led  to  those  conclusions."  (Samuel 
Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  87.) 

Thus,  then  it  appeaVs,  these  omissions  took  place,  cer- 
tainly with  the  consent,  and  probably,  at  the  request  or 
upon  the  suggestion  of  the  very  persons  who  now  com- 
plain. Under  such  circumstances,  this  measure,  by  no 
means  unusual,  for  Abranam  Lower  testified  that  he  has 
known  cases  brought  to  the  yearly  meeting  and  laid  over 
for  the  consideration  of  the  next,  does  not  afford  ground 
for  censure,  much  less  for  annihilation,  and  least  of  all  on 
the  objection  of  those  who,  if  they  did  not  actually  bring 
it  about,  were  c-onsenting  thereto. 

But,  it  is  said,  the  meeting  was  not  in  a  qualified  state 
to  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  these  subjects.  What 
then  ?  Was  this  unqualified  state  peculiar  to  one  portion, 
or  common  to  all  1  Was  the  meeting  thereby  dissolved  ? 
If  wonted  harmony  ceased  to  prevail,  if  the  minds  of  the 
members  had  become  so  sensitive  on  particular  points 
that  the  introduction  of  them  would  produce  agitation 
and  excitement,  unfavorable  to  cool,  deliberate  and  dis- 
passionate investigation  and  decision,  it  was  the  part  of 
prudence,  of  christian  forbearance,  of  enlightened  reason, 
of  patience  and  meekness,  and  of  that  spirit  of  peace  and 
submission  which,  may  I  not  say  without  offence  to  others, 


36 

SO  eminently  characterizes  this  religious  denomination,  to 
wait  in  humble  expectation  of  the  overshadowing  of  that 
Power  who  can  say,  as  well  to  the  stormy  passions  of  the 
human  breast  as  to  the  torrent  and  the  whirlwind,  "  Peace, 
be  still."  But  if  such  a  state  of  things  be  a  dissolution,  no 
human  society  can  be  held  together,  and  attempts  at  order 
and  government,  instead  of  the  means  of  curbing,  and  re- 
straining, and  controlling  the  wayward  passions  of  man, 
do  but  afford  him  the  opportunity  of  giving  them  extend- 
ed and  unbridled  influence  and  action. 

Besides  these  considerations,  which  are,  I  trust,  suffi- 
cient, conclusively  to  sustain  the  meeting  in  its  constitu- 
tional existence,  there  are  some  others,  founded  on  the 
acts  and  conduct  of  the  members,  and  the  component 
parts  of  the  society  at  large  or  the  subordinate  meetings, 
which  incontrovertibly  evince  the  acknowledged  existence 
of  the  meeting,  and  its  direct  recognition  as  such,  not  only 
during  its  session,  but  after  it  had  closed  its  services  for 
the  year. 

John  Comly,  and  I  feel  at  liberty  to  refer  to  him,  though 
an  individual,  from  his  eminent  standing  and  distinguished 
character,  both  private  and  public,  as  a  man  and  as  a 
minister,  as  well  as  from  the  prominent  part  he  bore  in 
the  transactions  which  attended  the  separation  in  this  so- 
ciety. John  Comly  acted  throughout  the  meeting,  from 
the  commencement  to  the  close,  as  its  organ,  as  an  officer 
of  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia.  He  did,  indeed, 
request  to  be  excused  from  serving  in  that  capacity.  But 
the  fact  remains  that  he  did  serve,  and  the  reasons  that  he 
gave  for  being  inclined  to  withdraw,  strengthen  the  infer- 
ences to  be  deduced  from  the  fact.  Few  men  are,  1  be- 
Heve,  more  distinguished  for  purity,  candor,  and  every 
other  virtue.  Did  he  say,  I  cannot  serve  this  meeting,  be- 
cause I  am  not  lawfully  and  rightly  appointed  an  assist- 
ant, and  to  act  as  such,  would  be,  in  me,  usurpation  and 
oppression  1  Did  he  say,  he  had  been  recorded  as  assistant 
"  in  opposition  to  the  voice  of  the  larger  part  of  the  meet- 
ing ?"  Did  he  say,  "  the  hedge  was  broken  down ;"  the 
meeting  was  disorganized,  a  revolution  had  occurred, 
there  was  no  longer  a  yearly  meeting,  but  the  society  was 
dissolved  into  its  original  elements?  Halliday  Jackson 
testifies  thus :  "  The  next  morning,  I  believe,  John  Comly 
did  not  take  his  seat  at  the  table,  at  the  opening  of  the 
meeting,  as  usual."     In  this  particular,  perhaps  not  a  very 


37 

knportant  one,  the  witness  afterwards  corrected  him- 
self, and  said  he  believed  Comjy  took  his  seat  at  the  table 
by  the  side  of  the  clerk,  when  he  first  came  into  the  meet- 
ing, (vol.  2.  Evid.  132)  "but  soon  after,  he  got  up,  and 
made  a  very  forcible  appeal  to  the  yearly  meeting.  I 
think  he  regretted  the  state  and  dilemma  into  which  the 
yearly  meeting  appeared  to  be  brought :  that  there  were 
two  parties,  evidently  two  parties,  that  appeared  to  be 
irreconcileable  to  each  other,  and  therefore  not  qualified 
to  proceed  in  the  weighty  concerns  of  a  yearly  meeting 
under  those  trying  circumstances,  and  proposed  that  the 
yearly  meeting  might  adjourn,  and  Friends  endeavour  to 
get  cool  and  quiet  in  their  minds,  and  that  possibly  they 
might  be  favoured  to  come  together  again  at  some  other 

time,  and  be  more  in  the  harmony And  although 

John  Comly  expressed  his  uneasiness  at  acting  as  assist- 
ant clerk,  at  the  request  of  some  of  his  friends,  and  some 
of  the  other  party,  also,  he  submitted  again  to  go  to  the 
table."  (H.  Jackson,  vol.  2.  Evid.  54.)  Other  witnesses 
state  the  transaction,  not  differently,  though  somewhat 
more  fully.  "  On  third  day  morning,  immediately  after 
the  opening  minute  was  read,  John  Comly  rose  and  stated, 
that  he  had  mentioned  at  the  previous  sitting,  that  he 
should  go  to  the  table  in  condescension  to  the  views  of 
his  friends,  and  that  it  was  in  that  feeling  that  he  was 
now  there ;  that  the  meeting  was  divided  into  two  dis- 
tinct and  separate  parties,  and  that  under  present  circum- 
stances those  parties  were  irreconcileable ;  that  each  of 
these  parties  was  striving  for  the  mastery,  and  that  if 
either  of  them  gained  the  ascendency,  it  must  be  to  the 
grievance  and  oppression  of  the  other.  He  therefore 
proposed  that  the  meeting  should  suspend  all  farther  busi- 
ness, and  adjourn ;  but  if  the  meeting  was  resolved  to 
proceed  in  its  business,  at  all  hazards,  he  could  not  con- 
scientiously act  as  the  organ  of  a  meeting  made  up  of 
such  conflicting  parties,  and  must  therefore  request  to  be 
permitted  to  retire.  His  proposal  ....  was  but  feebly 
supported His  party  strongly  objected  to  his  leav- 
ing the  table,  urged  his  continuance,  and  that  the  meeting 
should  now  proceed  with  its  business.  John  Comly  then 
rose  and  stated,  that  as  he  found  the  meeting  was  not 
prepared  to  adjourji,  he  was  willing,  after  the  usual  ex- 
pression of  approbation,  to  determine  the  sense  of  the 
meeting  on  hie  remaining  at  the  table,  so  to  continue,  and 
19 


lo  proceed  with  the  business."  (Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1. 
Evid.  266.)  "He  took  his  seat,  prepared  to  act,  and  the 
business  did  progress,  he  acting  as  usual,  without  making 
any  farther  objection  on  his  part."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol  1. 
Evid.  69.) 

Having  seen  the  conduct  of  this  very  active  and  very 
useful  member,  as  he  is  called  by  one  of  the  witnesses, 
(Abraham  Lower,  vol.  1.  Evid.  392.)  let  us  briefly  advert 
to  that  of  the  other  members  of  the  meeting,  who  now 
belong  to  the  meeting  in  Green  street. 

Their  urgency  that  John  Comly  should  act  as  assistant 
clerk,  and  that  the  business  of  the  meeting  should  pro- 
ceed, has  just  been  mentioned.  "  The  yearly  meeting  of 
1827,  was  entirely  conducted  as  it  had  been  on  previous 
occasions."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  94.)  "During 
that  meeting,  persons  who  have  since  joined  the  other 
meeting,  were  appointed  on  committees,  and  took  an  ac- 
tive part  in  the  concerns  of  the  meeting  throughout" 
Ibid.  In  the  afternoon  of  the  first  day's  meeting,  some  of 
the  friends  of  John  Comly  "expressed,  that  they  thought 
the  business  of  the  meeting  had  better  go  forward." 
(Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  266.)  "During  all  the  re- 
maining sittings  of  the  yearly  meeting,  he  [John  Comly] 
and  his  friends  continued  their  attendance,  took  part  in  its 
dehberations,  assented  or  dissented  from  its  conclusions, 
as  opinion  led  them,  and  addressed  it  as  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia."  (Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  267.) 
"During  the  last  hour  of  the  sitting,  all  the  proceedings 
were  read  over,  as  is  usual,  at  the  close  of  the  yeaily 
meeting ;  no  objections  were  made  by  any  one,  to  any 
part  of  the  minutes;  the  concluding  minute  was  also  read, 
adjourning  the  meeting  until  the  next  year,  at  the  usual 
time  and  place,  if  the  Lord  permit."  This  conclusion  is 
the  form  common  on  such  occasions.  "  After  this  minute 
was  read,  a  considerable  pause  ensued  ;  there  was  no  ob- 
jection made  to  it,  and  Friends  separated  from  each  other 
in  the  usual  manner."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  70. 
Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  268.)  "  Those  who  have 
since"  joined  ihe  Green  street  meeting,  "  were  generally 
present  at  the  time  of  the  adjournment.  The  yearly 
meeting  was  as  large  and  numerous  at  the  last  sitting,  as 
at  any  sitting  during  the  week."  (Joseph  Whitall,  vol.  1. 
Evid.  218.) 

One  of  the  transactions  of  this  meeting  deserves,  in  th« 


39 

present  connexion,  particular  notice.  "There  \5ras  ono 
nnatter  before  the  meeting  which  was  of  a  humane  and 
benevolent  character,  that  Friends,  perhaps  of  both  parr 
ties,  were  pretty  much  united  in."  (Haliday  Jackson* 
vol.  2.  Evid.  56.)  "  That  was  to  raise  three  thousand-  dol- 
lars to  aid  our  brethren  in  North  Carolina,  in  removing 
out  of  that  state,  many  hundred  coloured  people,  eight  or 
nine  hundred  of  them  at  least,  who  were  under  the  care 
of  the  Carolina  yearly  meeting,  and  whose  liberties  were 
in  jeopardy,  unless  they  removed  out  of  the  state.  This 
sum  it  was  proposed  should  be  raised  by  the  different 
quarterly  meetings,  in  the  usuial  proportions.  This  was 
entirely  united  with ;  not  a  single  dissentijent  voice ;  a 
great  many  expressing  their  views,  and  a  minute  was 
made,  directingthe  quarterly  meetings  to  r^ise  the  fnoney 
and  pay  it  to  Ellis  Yarnall,  the  treasurer  of  the  yearly 
meeting.  The  quarterly  meetings  that  composje  the  yearly 
meeting,  all  assembled,  ^nd  in  conformity  with  the  direc- 
tion contained  in  the  extract  from  the  yearly  meeting, 
raised  their  quotas  of  the  three  thousand  dollars,  and  paid 
it  to  Ellis  Yarnall,  the  treasurer."  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  J. 
Evid.  70.)  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  bore  its 
wonted  part.  This  transaction  is  of  an  unequivocal  char- 
acter. The  resolve  was  an  act,  not  of  private  or  individ- 
ual benevolence,  but  of  the  meeting  in  its  collective  ca- 
pacity. The  recommendation,  by  the  extract,  was  such 
as  that  meeting  alone  could  perform.  All,  we  are  told, 
united  in  it.  Not  a  dissentient  voice.  It  was  received  by 
the  several  quarterly  meetings  as  an  act  of  the  yearly 
meeting,  and  carried  into  effect  as  such,  and  the  monies 
were  transmitted  to  the  treasurer ;  thereby  making,  after 
the  close  of  the  yearly  meeting,  a  direct  recognition  of  its 
existence  and  authority.  The  effect  of  these  circum- 
stances cannot  be  weakened  by  the  "  humane  and  benev- 
olent character"  of  this  work  of  charity.  It  was  indeed 
proof  of  a  noble  and  munificent  spirit.  But  suppose  the 
general  assembly  of  the  presbyterian  church,  or  the  pro- 
testant  episcopal  convention,  had  sent  missives  or  extracts 
to  the  quarterly  meetings  enjoining  the  donation,  and  to 
make  their  treasurers  the  channels  of  conveyance,  would 
the  call  have  been  obeyed? 

I  do  not  pause  to  answer,  but  proceed  to  the  consider- 
ation of  another  of  the  heads  into  which  this  case  has 
been  divided,  the  designs,  plaqs,  vi^v^?,  fftclings  and  acts 


40 

of  individual  members  of  the  society,  and  under  tfiik 
head  shall  notice,  so  far  as  I  think  it  necessary,  the  con- 
duct of  subordinate  meetings,  and  of  what  has  been 
called  the  dominant  party. 

And  here  I  make  some  general  remarks,  which  indeed 
in  my  judgment,  furnish  an  answer,  a  decisive  answer,  to 
many  of  the  conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  or  sug- 
gested from  the  facts  which,  on  these  points  of  the  case, 
appear  in  evidence. 

First.  Our  concern  is  with  the  yearly  meeting  in  its' 
collective  capacity.  Our  purpose  is  to  ascertain  whether 
that  body  holds  or  has  ceased  to  hold,  a  legal  existence ; 
whether  the  body  which  met  on  Arch  street,  and  contin- 
ued and  closed  its  session  there,  in  April,  1827,  was  the 
constitutional  yearly  meeting  of  the  society?  Whether 
the  yearly  meeting  then  assembled,  performed  its  func- 
tions and  adjourned?  or  whether  that  assemblage,  at  its 
opening,  in  its  progress,  or  at  its  conclusion,  ceased  to  be 
the  ancient  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting  ?  Whether  the 
venerable  edifice  remained,  or  its  place  exhibited  only  a- 
deplorable  pile  of  ruins. 

Second.  As  such,  then  are  our  concern  and  purpose, 
we  have  little  to  do  with  the  causes  of  division  and  sepa- 
ration about  which  so  much  has  been  said  and  written  in' 
the  course  of  this  cause,  or  with  the  division  and  separa- 
tion, except  so  far  as  they  may  operate  on  the  legal  exist- 
ence of  the  assemblies  of  this  society.  A  separation  has, 
indeed,  taken  place.  Those  who  formerly  offered  their 
sacrifices  on  a  common  altar,  now  no  longer  worship  or 
commune  together.  Many  who  once  went  up  to  the  an- 
cient temple  have  left  it,  and  go  up  to  another  mount. 
They  had  the  right  to  do  so.  Our  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty, whereof  we  have  such  just  reason  for  congratulation 
and  gratitude,  left  them  free  from  all  restraint,  save  con- 
science and  the  divine  law.  We  are  not  here  to  approve 
or  condemn  them,  nor  to  inquire  into  their  motives,  nor  to 
estimate  their  strength,  or  their  purity,  or  their  consistency 
with  the  light  of  truth  whereby  all  profess  to  be  guided. 
I  wish  to  judge  no  "  man's  servant.  To  his  own  master 
he  standeth  or  falleth."  I  hope  to  be  able  to  continue  and 
close  this  investigation,  without  any  inquiry  into  religious 
faith  or  opinions.  Not  that  I  doubt  the  power  of  this 
court.  For  while  I  utterly  disclaim  the  idea  that  this 
court,  or  any  court,  or  any  human  power,  has  the  right 


411 

to  enforce  a  creed,  or  system  of  doctrine  or  beTi'ef,  on  any 
man,  or  to  require  him  to  assent  tO'  any  prescribed  system 
of  doctrine,  or  to  search  out  his  beUef  for  the  purpose  of 
restraining  or  punishing  it  in  any  temporal  tribunal,  I  do 
most  unqualifiedly  assert  and  maintain  the  power  and  right 
of  this  court,  and  of  every  court  in  New  Jersey,  to  ascer- 
tain, by  competent  evidence,  what  are  the  religious  prin- 
ciples of  any  man  or  set  of  men,  when,  as  may  frequently 
be  the  case,  civil  rights  are  thereon  to  depend,  or  thereby 
to  be  decided.  In  a  greater  or  less  degree  it  is  done  daily. 
Who  avail  themselves  of  it  more  frequently  than  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends,  when,''  on  the  ground  of  religious  faith, 
they  claim  and  enjoy  an  exemption  from  the  use  of  an 
oath  in  our  courts  of  justice  1.  How  far,  then,  this  separa- 
tion may  have  been  proper,  or  whether  the  causes  of  it 
will  stand  the  scrutiny,which,  in  the  great  day  of  account, 
they  must  undergo,  we  are  not  to  resolve.  Its  effect  on 
this  society  and  the  ancient  assembly,  is  the  outermost 
bound  of  our  inquiry. 

Third.  Inasmuch  as  our  research,  properly  and  almost 
exclusively  relates,  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  to  the 
yearly  meeting  in  its  collective  capacity,  it  is  of  little 
worth  to  inquire  into  the  plans,  designs,  or  views  of  indi- 
viduals, or  even  the  acts,  of  inferior  bodies,  since  these, 
however  incorrect,  or  hostile,  or  indefensible,  can  have  no 
great  influence  on  our  main  pursuit;  for  if  individuals 
were  ambitious,  not  lowly,  arrogant,  not  humble,  domi- 
neering, not  submissive,  and  were  destitute  of  the  mild  and 
forbearing  spirit  of  Christianity  ;  if  a  party  had  sprung  up, 
resolved,  as  was  said,  "  to  rule  or  to  rend ;"  if  even  month- 
ly or  quarterly  meetings  had  violated  the  wholesome  rules 
of  common  discipline,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the 
bonds  of  the  society  were  broken,  their  compact  dissolved, 
their  discipline  at  an  end,  their  constitution  destroyed,  and 
their  existence  annihilated.  Such  a  government  is  d' 
mockery,  a  pretence.  It  has  not  the  consistency  of  eveti'. 
the  mist  of  the  morning.  The  plain  and  irresistible  truth^' 
that  such  a  government,  so  wholly  unadapted  to  the  con- 
dition of  mankind,  could  not  exist,  abundantly  proves  that 
such  principles  are  unsound.  The  basis  of  all  govern- 
ment, is  the  truth  taught  by  every  page  of  history,  that 
turbulent  passions  will  arise,  that  acts  of  violence  will  be 
committed ;  and  the  purpose  of  government  is  to  control,,; 
U>  regulate,  to  repress,  to  remedy  such  passions  and  coi>. 
19=* 


42 

duct.  If  otherwise,  the  edifice  is  built  of  such  stuff  a* 
dreams  are  made  of,  and  is  as  unsubstantial  and  as  little  to 
be  valued  as  a  castle  in  the  air.  If  the  state  of  Georgia 
should  disregard  the  decision  of  the  federal  judiciary,  or 
even  resist  the  executive  power  of  the  United  States,  is  the 
constitutioi}  dissolved  ?.  If  designs  exist  in  South  Carolina 
"  to  rule  or  to  rend,"  our  government,  surely,  is  not  there- 
fore annihilated.  It  may  be  said,  these  are  but  parts, 
small  parts  of  the  Union.  Is  it,  not  in  like  manner  said, 
the  adherents  of  the  Arch  street  meeting  are  a  minority,  a 
small  minority  1  Gough,  in  his  history,  makes  this  judi- 
cious and  appropriate  remark.  "The  independency 
claimed  by  the  discontented  party,  is  incompatible  with 
the  existence  of  society.  Absolute  independency  in  so- 
ciety being  a  contradiction  in  terms."  3  Gough^s  Hist.  24» 

This  view  of  the  subject  would,  I  think,  excuse  any  ex- 
amination in  detail;  yet  to  see  these  principles  in  their 
practical  application,  as  well  as  farther  to  illustrate  the 
matter,  and  to  leave,  if  possible,  nothing  without  notice, 
which  is  urged  as  bearing  on  the  result,  I  shall  briefly  ad- 
vert to  some  of  the  prominent  topics  of  dissatisfaction  and 
complaint, 

"  The  most  prominent  cause  of"  the  division  in  the 
society,  "of  a  public  nature,  I  consider  to  be,"  says  one 
of  the  witnesses,  (Abraham  Lower,  vol.  1.  Evid.  354.). 
"  the  public  opposition  or  disrespect,  manifested  by  the 
members  of  Pine  street  monthly  meeting,  by  the  agency 
and  influence  of  Jonathan  Evans,  in  breaking  up  the  men's; 
meeting,  or  closing  it,  whilst  Elias  Hicks  was,  wuth  the 
consent  and  approbation  of  that  monthly  meeting,  engaged 
in  the  women's  department  in  the  prosecution  of  his  reli- 
gious concern."  The  occurrence  took  place  "  between 
1819  and  1821,"  {Ibid.)  Now,  if  a  prominent  member  of 
that  meeting  was  guilty  of  rudeness  or  impropriety,  it  is 
plain,  that  he  should  have  been  individually  dealt  with, 
brought  to  confess,  his  error,,  or  disowned.  If  the  meet- 
ing, jjs  such,  acting  from  his  example  or  under  his  influ- 
ence, were  guilty  of  censurable  disrespect,  "  such  meet- 
ing ought"  to  have  been  required  ''to  render  an  account 
thereof"  I  use,  here,  the  words  of  the  book  of  discipline,, 
the  meaning  of  which  is  well  understood*  But  it  is  claim- 
ing too  much,  to  assert,  that  the  society  is  thereby  rent 
asunder,  when  no  measures  to  punish  the  offenders  were 
ineffectually  assayed,  when  years  have  shed  their  healing 


43 

influence  over  it ;  or  that  the  religious  rights  and  priVf* 
leges  of  all  the  other  meetings  and  members,  within  a  larga 
district  of  territory  have  been  jeoparded,  and  the  subse- 
quent sessions  of  the  yearly  meeting  been  unwarranted^ 
and  their  acts  usurpation  and  oppression. 

Another  complaint  against  individuals,  and  against  the 
meeting  for  sufferings,  is  called  "  an  insidious  effort  to  palm 
a  creed  upon  a  society  which  never  had  a  creed."  (Abra- 
ham Lower,  vol.  1.  Evid.  369.)  The  aftair  is  thus  repre- 
sented by  the  witness  who  uses  the  expression  I  have 
quoted.     "The  minds  of  some  of  the  members  of  that 
meeting  appeared  to  be  anxious  that  something  should  be 
done  to  keep  the  minds  of  the  members  of  the  society  from 
imbibing  sentiments  which  seemed  to  be  growing  common- 
among  its  members.     The  suggestion  was  made  to  get  up' 
a  pamphlet,  to  be  composed  of  extracts- from  the  writings 
of  our  early  Friends,  and  from  what  some  of  us  saw  of  the 
disposition  of  those  persons,  who  have  since  denominated' 
themselves  '  Orthodox'. . . .  we  felt  afraid  that  something- 
was  about  to  be  got  up,  calculated  to  trammel  our  con- 
scientious rights,  and  when  the  pamphlet  was  prepared,  a' 
small  number  of  us  expressed  our  dissatisfaction  with  the 
undertaking,  and  with,  the  matter  of  the  pamphlet,,  fearing, 
that  in  the  hands  of  arbitrary  men,  a  construction;  might 
be  given  to  some  of  the  views  in  that  pamphlet,  that  would 
abridge  the  right  of  private  judgment. — there  were,  I 
think,   ten  thousand  of  them  printed but  it  was  de- 
tained, not  published.     And  when  the  minutes  of  the  meet- 
ing for  sufferings  came  to  be  read  as  usual,  in  the  yearly 
meeting,  to  irwy  surprise,  that  pamphlet  appeared  to-be  re- 
corded on  the  minutes,  and  when  it  was  read,  the  yearly 
meeting  appeared  very  much  dissatisfied  with  it.     It  was 
proposed,  and  generally   united  with,  and  so  expressed, 
that  it  should  be  expun-ged  from  the  minutes  of  the  meet- 
ing for  sufferings... .  It  was  finally  left,,  with  the  conclu- 
sion that  it  should  not  be  published.     It  was  considered  in 
the  light  of  a  creed,  and  that  by  this  course  of  leaving  it 
on  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings.. . .  that  when 
the  minutes  should  be  read  in  the  yearly  meeting,  and  that 
as  a  part  of  them,  that  it  would  be  adopted  by  society, 
foisted  upon  them  in  that  insidious  way."  (Abraham  Lower, 
vol.  I.  Evid.  368.)  On  the  other  side,  the  following  repro- 
sentation  of. this  affair  was  made.  "  It  has  been  the  custom 
of  the  society,  whenever  any  of  its  doctrines  op  testimonies 


44 

are  misrepresented  in  works  that  are  published,  to  endesf- 
vour  to  induce  the  editors  of  those  works  to  give  the  views 
that  Friends  hold  in  respect  to  the  doctrines  thus  misre- 
presented. In  the  year  1822,  there  was  a  discussion  in  a 
public  paper,  printed  at  Wilmington,  conducted  under  the 
signatures  of  Paul  and  Amicus ;  Paul  attacking  Friends, 
and  Amicus  speaking  in  their  behalf,  and  in  a  manner  too, 
which  showed,  that  he  was  speaking  for  the  society,  clear- 
ly. After  this  discussion  had  progressed  for  a  considera- 
ble time,  Amicus  avowed  doctrines,  as  part  of  the  chris- 
tian faith,  which  we  could  not  accord  with  ;  they  appeared- 
to  be  of  a  socinian  character,  at  least.  These  essays- 
being  about  to  be  reprinted  in  form  of  a  book ....  the: 
meeting  for  sufferings,  in  the  regular  order  of  their  pro- 
ceedings did  ....  notice  it,  by  appointing  a  committee 

The  committee  pursued  the  usual  course prepared  a 

statement  of  what  were  the  views  of  Friends  ....  making 
extracts  from  various  approved  authors.  The  meeting 
united  with  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  made  a  mi- 
nute on  the  subject.  The  editor  did  publish  the  minute  in 
his  paper,  but  declined  saying  any  thing  on  the  subject  in 
his  book.  The  meeting  were  under  the  necessity  of  pub- 
lishing these  extracts  themselves,  and  did  print  an  edition 
of  it.  In  the  yearly  meeting  of  1823,  when  the  minutes  of" 
the  meeting  for  sufferings  were  read,  considerable  objec- 
tions were  made  to  that  part  of  the  proceedings The- 

excitement  being  considerable,  the  meeting  adjourned  un- 
til the  next  morning.  When  the  meeting  assembled  the- 
next  morning,  it  was  proposed  that  the  extracts  should  be 
stricken  off  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  for  sufferings ;  ob- 
jection was  made  to  that,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be 
a  disavowal  of  the  doctrines  held  by  Friends,  these  extracts^ 
being  taking  from  the  writings  of  approved  Friends." .... 
It  was  "proposed  to  them  to  avoid  both  difficulties  by  sim- 
ply suspending  the  publication,  not  taking  it  off  the  minutes, 
and  not  circulating  the  pamphlets,  but  leaving  the  subject. 
This  proposition  was  finally  acquiesced  in,  and  the  business 
so  settled,"  (Samuel  Bettle,  vol.  1.  Evid.  72.)  How  far 
this  explanation  may  serve  to  show  that  the  measure  was 
in  conformity  with  ancient  custom,  and  called  for  by  the 
exigency  of  the  occasion ;  or  how  far  it  was  an  insidious 
effort  to  impose  a  creed ;  or  how  far  the  fear  was  well 
founded  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  trammel  conscien- 
tious rights,  or  to  abridge  the  right  of  private  judgment,  I 


46 

«hall  not  undertake  to  decide.  It  is  enougli  to  say,  that  if 
such  a  design  existed,  if  such  an  effort  was  made,  the  de- 
sign was  frustrated,  the  effort  was  defeated;  and  the 
authors  of  it  met  with  a  just,  though  silent  rebuke.  But 
the  attempt  did  not  impair  the  solidity  of  the  yearly 
meeting  to  which  it  was  proposed.  I  cannot  believe  that 
the  proposal,  by  a  committee  of  congress,  of  an  unconsti- 
tutional or  oppressive  law,  would  annihilate  that  body,  or 
abrogate  the  constitution.  The  wildest  and  most  vision- 
ary theorists  would  not,  I  believe,  venture  on  such  bold 
and  untenable  ground. 

This  matter,  of  religious  faith  and  doctrine  of  a  creed, 
has  directly  or  indirectly  filled  up  a  large  portion  of  the 
volumes  of  evidence  before  us,  was  the  subject  of  many 
remarks  in  the  arguments  of  the  counsel  at  the  bar  of  this 
court,  has  been  the  cause  of  much  anxiety  and  alarm ; 
and  misunderstandings  in  respect  to  it,  have,  I  doubt  not, 
had  great  influence  in  bringing  about  the  lamented  rupture 
in  this  most  respectable  society.  I  fear  the  matter  has 
been  greatly  misunderstood,  if  not  greatly  misrepresented. 
This  society  has,  and  from  the  nature  of  things,  must 
have,  its  faith  and  doctrines,  its  distinguishing  faith  and* 
doctrines.  They  would,  unhesitatingly,  repudiate  the 
the  tenets  of  Confucius,  of  Bramah,  or  of  Mohammed. 
They  believe  "in  Christ  and  him  crucified."  They  bear 
both  public  and  private  testimony  of  their  faith.  They 
have  repeatedly  declared  it,  and  published  it  to  the  v/orld. 
They  have  a  confession  of  faith,  and  a  catechism.  A  de- 
claration of  faith  was  issued  on  behalf  of  the  society,  in 
the  year  1693,  was  approved  by  the  morning  meeting  of 
London,  and  published  by  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadel- 
phia, in  or  about  1730.  It  is,  I  suppose,  the  same  which 
is  to  be  found  in  Sewell's  History,  (vol.  2.  472.)  It  pur- 
ports to  be  "  a  declaration  of  what  our  christian  belief 
and  profession  has  been  and  is,"  and  contains  an  exposi- 
tion of  belief,  in  respect  to  Jesus  Christ,  his  suffering, 
death,  and  resurrection,  and  the  general  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  and  the  final  judgment.  Sewell,  (vol.  2.  483.y 
gives  what  he  calls  "  a  confession  of  faith,"  which  was». 
by  George  Whitehead  and  others,  presented  to  parliament, 
in  December,  1693,  and  begins,  thus,  "  Be  it  known  to  all,, 
that  we  sincerely  believe  and  confess."  The  yearly 
meeting,  as  early  as  1701,  by  their  direction  and  at  their 
dxpensQ,  circulated  Barclay's  Apology,  and  his  Catechism, 


46 

and  Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  the  doctrines  and 
tenets  of  the  society  of  Friends.  What  is  a  creed  but 
an  exhibition  of  faith  and  doctrine  1  Why,  then,  should 
the  tocsin  now  be  sounded  among  a  people,  who,  a  well 
informed  member  tells  us,  have  more  frequently  than  any 
other  religious  community,  exhibited  to  the  world  their 
principles  and  their  faith  ?  Were  the  early  Friends  less 
anxious  for  the  cause  of  truth,  less  jealous  of  encroachment 
on  their  religious  freedom,  less  willing  to  bear  testimony 
against  error  and  to  suffer  for  their  testimony,  less  prompt 
to  discern  insidious  efforts,  less  fearful  of  attempts  to 
trammel  conscience  or  abridge  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment? The  observations  of  Robert  Barclay,  in  a  treatise 
on  church  government,  published  under  the  sanction  of 
the  society,  and  several  times  printed  by  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  Philadelphia,  (Thomas  Evans,  vol.  1.  Evid.  304.). 
are  fraught  with  so  much  good  sense,  practical  wisdomr 
and  genuine  piety,  that  they  cannot  be  too  frequently 
pondered  by  all,  of  every  name  or  sect,  who  fepl  an  in- 
terest in  the  cause  of  religious  truth  and  order.  "  Whether 
the  church  of  Christ  have  power  in  any  cases  that  are 
matters  of  conscience,  to  give  a  positive  sentence  and  de- 
cision, which  may  be  obligatory  upon  believers.  I  an- 
swer affirmatively,  she  hath ;  and  shall  prove  it  in  divers 
instances,  both  from  Scripture  and  reason ;  for,  first,  all 
principles  and  articles  of  faith  which  are  held  doctrinally, 
are,  in  respect  to  those  that  believe  them,  matters  of  con- 
science  Now,  I  say,  we  being  gathered  into  the  be- 
lief of  certain  principles  and  doctrines,  without  any  con- 
straint or  worldly  respect,  but  by  the  mere  force  of  truth 
on  our  understanding,  and  its  power  and  influence  upon 
our  hearts,  these  principles  and  doctrines,  and  the  prajc- 
tices  necessarily  depending  upon  them,  are,  as  it  were, 
the  terms  that  have  drawn  us  together,  and  the  bond  by 
which  we  became  centered  into  one  body  and  fellowship, 
and  distinguished  from  others.  Now,  if  any  one  or  more,, 
so  engaged  with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other  doctrine 
or  doctrines,  contrary  to  these  which  were  the  ground  of 
our  being  one,  who  can  deny  but  the  body  hath  power  in 
such  a  case  to  declare,  this  is  not  according  to  the  truth  zee 
profess,  and  therefore,  we  pronounce  such  and  such  doc- 
trines to  be  ivrong,  with  which  we  cannot  have  unity,  nor 
yet  any  more  spiritual  fellowship  with  those  that  hold 
them Now,  this  cannot  be  accounted  tyranny  and 


4r 

oppfessioh Were  such  a  principle  to  be  received  or 

believed,  that  in  the  church  of  Christ  no  man  man  should 
be  separated  from,  no  man  condemned  or  excluded  the 
fellowship  and  communion  of  the  body,  for  his  judgment 
or  opinions  in  matters  of  faith,  then  what  blasphemies  so 
horrid,  what  heresies  so  damnable,  what  doctrines  of 
devils  but  might  harbour  itself  in  the  church  of  Christ? 
What  need  then  of  sound  doctrine,  if  no  doctrine  make 
unsound?  ....  Where  a  people  are  gathered  into  the  be- 
lief of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
if  any  of  that  people  shall  go  from  their  principles,  and 
assert  things  false,  and  contrary  to  what  they  have  already 
received,  such  as  stand  and  abide  firm  in  the  faith  have 
power  ....  to  separate  from  such,  and  to  exclude  them 
from  their  spiritual  fellowship  and  communion."  (Bar- 
clay's Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  53,  &c.)  On  the  present 
occasion  it  is  not  my  purpose,  because  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  controversy  before  us,  I  do  not  find  or  deem 
it  necessary,  to  inquire  whether  the  society  of  Friends  can, 
or  may,  or  will,  according  to  their  rules,  disown  a  member 
who  holds  unsound  or  heretical  doctrines,  who  should  disa- 
vow all  the  essential  principles  of  Christianity,  and  profess 
to  believe  that  Jupiter  and  Mars  and  Apollo,  and  the 
fabled  deities  of  Olympus  are  the  true  gods,  or  that  the 
"  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins," 
but  simply  to  show  that  the  society  as  such,  have  their 
faith,  their  principles,  their  doctrines,  their  peculiar  faith, 
their  distinctive  principles,  their  characteristic  doctrines, 
without  which  a  man  may  be  a  heathen,  a  mohammedan, 
or  even  a  christian,  but  cannot  be  one  of  the  people  called 
Quakers.  Can  I  mistake  in  this,  when  I  read  such  a 
passage  as  I  have  quoted  from  Barclay,  a  standard  of  the 
society,  acknowledged,  received,  revered  as  such  ?  What 
is  his  work  just  named,  what  is  his  "  Apology,"  but  an 
exposure  of  doctrine,  of  principle,  of  faith,  of  the  doctrine, 
principle  and  faith  of  the  Friends,  avowed  by  them,  publish- 
ed by  them,  resorted  to  by  them  as  their  light  and  guide 
in  the  hours  of  darkness,  and  doubt,  and  difficulty  ;  in 
those  trying  hours,  which  come  to  them  as  they  come  to 
all  men  of  religious  feeling,  when  the  light  within  needs 
oil  and  the  flickering  flame  of  hope  to  be  made  steady 
and  brilliant.  Can  I  mistake,  when  the  book  of  discipMne, 
with  uncommon  solicitude,  requires  each  preparative 
meeting  of  ministers  and  elders  no  less  than  three  times 


48 

5ln  every  year,  to  certify  to  its  quarterly  meeting,  m  ati* 
Bwer  to  one  of  the  queries,  "  whether  ministers  are  sound 
in  word  and  doctrine?"  Soundness  is  a  relative  term, 
meaning  freedom  from  error  and  fallacy,  and  necessarily 
requiring  some  standard  whereby  the  word  and  the  doc- 
trine may  be  judged.  The  doctrine  to  be  sound,  must  be 
conformaBle  to  some  standard ;  and  does  not  the  query, 
then,  assert  that  a  standard  exists  in  this  church;  and 
that  thereby  the  doctrine  of  the  minister,  may,  by  his  fel- 
iow  man,  be  compared  and  tried  ?  If,  however,  I  may  \ 
mistake  in  thus  reverting  to  these  v^ierated  sources,  lei 
us  for  a  moment,  recur  to  the  evidence.  Abraham  Lower, 
(vol.  1.  Evid.  369.)  says,  in  connexion  with  this  subject, 
*'  The  society  believing  now  as  they  did,  in  the  first 
foundation  of  it,  that  the  bond  of  union,  by  which  it  was 
tound  together,  w^as  and  is,  •  the  life  of  righteousness.' " 
Is  not  here  a  direct  assertion,  that  there  is  a  belief,  and 
a  belief  not  merely  of  individuals,  but  of  the  society  as 
■such  ?  And  he  refers  for  an  exposition,  published  and  ex- 
pressed, to  the  author  and  the  book  from  which  I  have 
just  quoted.  In  this  connexion,  I  recur  farther,  to  the  first 
document  emanating  from  Green  street,  dated  fourth 
month,  1827.  "Doctrines  held  by  one  part  of  the  society, 
and  which  we  believe  to  be  sound  and  edifying,  are  pro- 
nounced by  the  other  party  to  be  unsound  and  spurious." 
Now  I  may  be  allowed  to  ask,  why  speak  of  doctrines,  if 
the  society,  as  such,  has  no  concern  with  them  ?  How 
are  doctrines  ascertained  to  be  unsound  and  spurious,  or 
sound  and  edifying,  if  there  be  no  standard  of  faith  and 
doctrine — no  creed  ?  Why  should  this  difference  or  de- 
parture from  a  sound  belief,  be  made  a  subject  of  com- 
plaint? How  is  such  a  denunciation  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  alarm  at  a  creed,  or  the  dreaded  attempt  to  con- 
trol conscience  and  abridge  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment? 

The  meeting  for  sufferings,  by  the  rejection  of  certain 
persons,  appointed  by  the  southern  quarter  as  representa- 
tives, are  charged  to  have  given  "  reason  to  apprehend 
that  they  were  determined  to  control  the  operations  of 
society  according  to  their  wills,"  and  to  have  furnished 
** evidence  of  their  iiaving  dissolved  the  compact,  and  so 
far  as  their  own  influence  extended,  and  their  own  acts 
could  extend,  separated  itself  from  the  society,"  (Abra- 
ham Lower,  vol.  L  Evid.  370.) 


4d 

The  meeting  for  sufferings,  is  a  subordinate  depart-* 
ment  for  the  business  of  this  society,  and  especially  to  ex- 
ercise care  during  the  intervals  between  the  sessions  of 
the  yearly  meeting.     If  this  body  did  improperly  reject 
the  representatives,  if  in  this  respect  they  violated  the 
discipline,  it  is  very  obvious  that  their  act,  their  unconsti- 
tutional act,  could  impart  no  censure  whatever  to  the 
yearly  meeting,  much  less  destroy  its  existence.     But  the 
design,  the  motive,  the  ambitious  and  domineering  spirit, 
which  induced  this  conduct,  these  are,  we  are  told,  the 
consuming  fires.     The  state  of  the  case  is  shortly  thus : 
The  meeting  for  sufferings  is  composed  of  twelve  Friends 
appointed  by  the  yearly  meeting,  and  also  of  four  Friends 
chosen  out  of  each  of  the  quarterly  meetings;    and  the 
book  of  discipUne  provides  that  "  in  case  of  the  decease 
of  any  Friend  or  Friends,  nominated  either  by  the  yearly 
meeting  or  quarterly  meetings,  or  of  their  declining  or 
neglecting  their  attendance  for  the  space  of  twelve  months, 
the  meeting  for  sufferings,  if  it  be  thought  expedient,  may 
choose  others  in  his  or  their  stead,  to  serve  till  the  time  of 
the  next  yearly  meeting,  or  till  the  places  of  those  who 
have  represented  the  quarterly  meetings  shall  be  supplied 
by  new  appointments."     (Book  of  discipline,  55.)     In  the 
year  1826,  the  southern  quarterly  meeting  resolved  to  re- 
lease two  of  the  persons,  who  were  then  sitting  as  mem- 
bers of  the  meeting  for  sufferings   under  their  appoint- 
ment ;  and  appointed  others.     The  meeting  were  of  opin- 
ion that  such  a  measure  was  not  contemplated  by  the  dis- 
cipline; that  the  quarter  had  a  right  to  fill,  but  not  to 
create  vacancies;  and  that  the  only  case  which  consti- 
tuted a  vacancy  and  called  for  a  new  appointment,  was 
death,  resignation,  or  neglect  of  attendance ;  neither  of 
which  then  existed.    The  meeting  for  sufferings  appointed 
a  committee  to  confer  with  the  quarterly  meeting.     The 
latter  adhered  to   their  resolution.     The  case  was  for- 
warded to  the  yearly  meeting  of  1827  for  their  care,  and 
was  one  of  those,  which   as  already  mentioned,  were 
postponed.     (Exhib.  No.  47,   vol.  2.  Evid.  477.)     Here, 
then,  appears  to  have  been  a  difference  of  opinion,  on  the 
construction  of  a  clause  in  the  book  of  discipline,  respect- 
ing the  power  of  the  quarterly  meeting.     Without  under- 
taking to  decide  which  is  correct,  there  was  certainly 
room  enough  for  a  diversity,  and  I  can  see  no  reason, 
either  in  the  relation  of  the  witnesses,  or  in  an  examinar 
20 


50 

tion  of  the  controverted  clause,  to  doubt  that  the  opinion 
entertained  by  the  meeting  for  sufferings,  was  honest  and 
sincere,  and  not  feigned  or  fraudulent ;  more  especially  if, 
as  alleged,  it  was  sanctioned  by  a  practice  of  seventy 
years,  coeval  with  the  existence  of  that  meeting.  Now. 
an  honest  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  constitutional  powers, 
could  not  "  dissolve  the  compact ;"  nor  could  the  act  of 
the  meeting,  in  sending  a  committee  to  confer  with  the 
quarter,  nor  even  their  omission  to  yield  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  quarter,  until  the  matter  could  be  investigated 
and  decided  by  the  ultimate  and  competent  tribunal,  the 
yearly  meeting.  But  in  whatever  light  we  may  view  this 
matter,  it  is,  as  already  observed,  the  act  of  the  meeting 
for  sufferings,  not  of  the  yearly  meeting.  The  course  pur- 
sued by  the  latter,  and  the  reason  of  that  course,  have 
been  already  mentioned  and  considered.  If,  indeed,  "  this 
circumstance"  had  produced,  as  is  said  by  one  of  the 
witnesses,  (Halliday  Jackson,  vol.  2.  Evid.  48.)  "  as  great 
a  sensation  throughout  the  society,  as,  perhaps,  any  other 
circumstance  that  occurred  previously  to  the  yearly  meet- 
ing of  1827,"  there  needs  be  no  surprise  that  this  meeting 
should  not  be  in  a  state  to  take  it  under  consideration; 
and  the  propriety  of  a  postponement  until  time  should 
have  shed  its  calming  influence,  and  the  consistency  of 
this  course  with  the  avowed  principles  and  frequent  prac- 
tice of  the  society  of  Friends,  are  very  manifest. 

The  remarks  which  I  have  made  on  these  cases,  se- 
lected by  way  of  example,  and  for  the  sake  of  illustration, 
I'ender  it  unnecessary  that  I  should  particularly  notice,  or 
enter  at  large  into  the  statement  or  consideration  of  others 
of  the  same  general  character.  If  the  principles  which  I 
have  endeavoured  to  establish,  and  have  applied  to  these 
cases,  are  correct,  the  others  can  have  no  greater  influ- 
ence on  the  question  of  the  continued  existence  of  the 
yearly  meeting. 

Another  point  has  been  decidedly  taken,  on  the  part  of 
those  who  maintain  the  dissolution  and  reorganization  of 
the  ancient  yearly  meeting,  and  which  I  have  shortly,  un- 
der this  head,  expressed  by  the  phrase,  "  feelings  of  indi- 
viduals." It  is  more  at  large  explained,  in  the  first  public 
document  issued  from  the  meeting  in  Green  street,  thus ; 
"  The  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupted  ;  a  division  exists 
among  us,  developing  views  which  appear  incompatible 
with  each  other,  and  feelings  averse  to  a  reconciliation." 


51 

Now  aamttting  this  to  be  true,  and  it  may,  perhaps,  be 
rather  to  be  lamented  than  denied,  that  such  incompatible 
views  and  averse  feelings  existed  in  both  parts  of  this 
body ;  what  consequence  can  fairly,  legally,  upon  any  prac- 
tical principles  of  human  action,  result  to  the  existence  of 
the  meeting,  and  the  connexion  of  the  society?  What 
consequence,  on  the  pacific  principles  always  maintained 
among  the  Friends?  If  time,  charity,  a  recollection  of 
the  common  sufferings  of  themselves  and  their  ancestors ; 
if  prayer  and  supplication;  if  the  smiles  of  the  Great 
Head  of  the  church  universal,  would  not  change  and  re- 
concile these  views,  reverse  and  soothe  these  feehngs, 
then  might  those  who  thought  "  the  period  had  fully  come 
when  they  ought  to  look  towards  making  a  quiet  retreat," 
have  justly  said  to  the  others,  "  Let  there  be  no  strife,  I 
pray  thee,  between  me  and  thee,  and  between  my  herds- 
men and  thy  herdsmen,  for  we  be  brethren  !  Separate 
thyself,  I  pray  thee,  from  me  ;  if  thou  wilt  take  the  left 
hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  right;  or  if  thou  depart  to  the 
right  hand,  then  I  will  go  to  the  left."  But  without  even 
an  attempt  at  such  a  voluntary  separation,  I  can  see  no 
safe  principle,  which  will  entitle  a  portion  of  those  who 
entertained  such  views  and  feelings,  on  account  of  their 
existence  and  prevalence,  to  disfranchise  the  rest,  to  de- 
clare the  ancient  meeting  dissolved,  the  society  broken  up 
into  its  individual  elements,  and  th'Ci  proceed  to  erect 
among  themselves  a  new  body,  and  declare  it  the  society 
of  Friends,  and  its  meeting,  not  merely  a  new  yearly 
meeting,  but  the  ancient  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting, 
not  a  new  yearly  meeting,  but  the  meeting  resettled  on  its 
ancient  foundations  and  principles. 

If  a  portion  of  this  religious  community  found,  or  be- 
lieved to  exist,  in  another  portion,  such  feelings  and  views 
as  rendered  it  impracticable  for  them  any  longer  to  fra- 
ternize, any  longer  peacefully,  harmoniously  and  profita- 
bly to  meet  and  commune  and  worship  together,  a  very 
sufficient  reason  in  conscience,  may  have  been  thereby 
afforded  them  to  withdraw,  to  make  "  a  quiet  retreat ;" 
and  the  principles  of  the  government  under  which  we 
have  the  happiness  to  live,  would  have  sustained  them 
in  the  measure,  and  allowed  them  to  join  any  other  reli- 
gious community,  or  form  another  association,  of  what- 
ever name,  for  religious  purposes.  But  the  existence  of 
such  feelings  and  views,  wouW.,  wt  deprive  those  who  re- 


52 

mained  of  their  ancient  name,  rights  and  privileges,  if 
they  retained  their  ancient  faith  and  doctrine,  maintained 
their  wonted  testimonies,  and  adhered  to  their  ancient 
standards  ;  nor  would  the  act  of  withdrawal,  even  if  by  a 
majority,  confer  on  them  the  form  and  name,  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  ancient  community.  In  like  manner, 
if  a  portion  discovered  in  the  rest,  or  in  some  of  the 
more  influential  members,  a  determination  "  to  rule  or  to 
rend,"  although  hereby,  in  conscience,  a  sufficient  reason 
to  excuse  or  justify  a  withdrawal  might  be  found,  yet 
could  not  even  a  majority  carry  with  them,  the  power 
and  authority  and  rights  of  the  whole,  unless  the  dispo- 
sition or  determination  had  been  carried  out  into  overt 
acts;  for,  of  the  latter  only,  can  men  judge  or  be  judged 
by  their  fellow  men,  while  of  the  former,  he  alone  can 
take  cognizance,  who  knoweth  the  secrets  of  all  hearts. 

I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  examine  and  weigh,  in  de- 
tail, or  by  its  principles,  every  argument  which  I  have  either 
heard  or  read,  to  prove  that  the  body  which  sat  in  Arch 
street  meeting  house,  in  April,  1827,  was  not,  or  ceased 
to  be  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting  of  Friends.  The 
position  is  not  maintained.  At  the  closing  minute,  that 
body  was  the  ancient  legitimate  yearly  meeting  as  fully 
as  during  the  forenoon  sitting  of  the  first  day,  or  as  it  had 
been  at  any  point  of  time  since  the  year  1685. 

If  this  be  true,  i.^,  the  body  which  then  closed  its  func- 
tions for  the  time,  in  the  usual  manner,  and  by  the  ancient 
minute,  was  the  legitimate  body,  it  is  enough  for  the  pre- 
sent occasion,  nor  need  we  look  at  its  future  history,  be- 
cause the  new  body,  which  claims  its  power  and  place, 
assembled  in  the  course  of  a  few  months,  and  before 
the  recurrence  of  the  next  annual  period.  It  may  not, 
however,  be  unprofitable  to  state  in  this  connexion,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  evidence,  that  in  the  year  1828,  and  since, 
annually,  at  the  wonted  time  and  place,  meetings  have 
been  held,  of  such  as  have  thought  proper  to  attend,  of 
the  acknowledged  members  of  the  ancient  society,  who 
have  not  been  disfranchised  by  any  act  of  any  tribunal, 
claiming  to  represent  the  society  of  Friends,  or  to  pos- 
sess or  exert  any  power  of  disownment. 

If  the  body  which  thus  held  and  closed  its  session,  was 
the  regular,  constitutional  yearly  meeting,  it  follows,  as 
an  inevitable  consequence,  that  the  assembly  which  con- 
vened in  October,  of  the  same  year,  in  Green  street,  could 


53 

not  be,  whatever  name  it  may  have  assumed^  the  ancient 
legitimate  yearly  meeting,  the  common  head  and  centre 
of  the  subordinate  meetings,  and  of  the  society  of  Friends 
in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.  One  meeting  being  in 
life,  another  of  the  same  powers,  rights,  and  jurisdiction, 
could  not,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  society,  ac- 
cording to  the  simplest  elements  of  reason,  according  to 
the  immutable  rules  of  action,  which  must  govern  and 
control  all  human  assemblages,  of  whatever  nature,  and 
whether  religious  or  civil,  according,  indeed,  to  the  avow- 
ed doctrines  of  the  pleadings  in  this  cause,  and  the  con- 
sentaneous declarations  of  counsel,  a  second,  a  subse- 
quent meeting  could  not,  be  set  up  within  its  bounds.  The 
yearly  meeting,  having  convened  and  closed  in  April, 
1827,  could  not  again  convene,  nor  could  any  body,  pos- 
sessing its  powers  and  authorities  convene,  until  the  same 
month  of  the  succeeding  year,  1828.  The  place  of  meet- 
ing was  fixed  by  the  voice  of  the  yearly  meeting,  which 
alone  had  the  authority  in  this  respect,  and  alone  could 
change  it.  The  time  was  directed  by  the  constitution  or 
book  of  discipline,  to  which  we  have  had  so  frequent  oc- 
casion to  refer.  The  time  could,  indeed,  be  altered  by  the 
yearly  meeting,  but  by  it  alone.  There  was  no  adjourn- 
ment made  by  the  yearly  meeting,  to  a  shorter  day  than 
the  annual  period.  There  is  no  provision  in  the  constitu- 
tion for  an  intermediate,  or  as  it  is  commonly  denomi- 
nated, a  special  meeting ;  nor  is  authority  given  to  the 
clerk,  to  any  portion  of  the  members,  or  invested  any 
where  else,  to  call  such  meeting.  Hence  it  clearly  follows, 
that  according  to  the  constitution,  the  yearly  meeting 
could  not  again  assemble,  until  1828;  and  no  body,  of 
whomsoever  consisting,  or  of  whomsoever  composed, 
which  may  have  convened  in  the  intermediate  period 
could,  conformably  to  the  constitutional  principles,  be,  the 
Philadelphia  yearly  meeting. 

We  learn,  however,  from  the  evidence  before  us,  that 
on  the  nineteenth,  twentieth,  and  twenty-first  days  of 
April,  during  the  yearly  meeting,  and  after  its  close,  a 
number  of  Friends  met  together  to  confer  on  the  state  of 
the  society.  They  resolved  to  meet  again,  and  accord- 
ingly did* meet,  in  the  sixth  month  of  that  year,  and  then 
recommended  that  a  yearly  meeting  should  be  held,  on 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  ensuing  month  of  Octol^er.  A 
meeting  was  held  at  the  Green  street  meeting  house.  And 
20* 


54 

this  meeting,  is  said  by  Stacy  Decow,  in  his  answer  to 
the  bill  of  interpleader,  to  be,  "  the  true  and  legitinnate 
yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia,"  and  by  one  of  the  wit- 
nesses, is  called  "  the  yearly  meeting  reorganized,"  (Abra- 
ham Lower,  vol.  1.  Evid.  404.)  We  are  now  to  examine 
whether  it  was  so,  and  in  the  present  inquiry  I  propose  to 
lay  out  of  view  the  fact,  which  I  believe  has  been  fully 
demonstrated,  that  the  yearly  meeting  was  actually  in 
full  vigour  and  capacity. 

This  inquiry  is  to  be  conducted  under  two  different  as- 
pects, first,  on  the  assumption  that  the  constitution  or  dis- 
cipline of  the  society  remained  in  force  ;  and  secondly, 
on  the  assumption  that  the  hedge  was  thrown  down,  the 
bond  of  union  unloosed,  the  society  broken  up  into  its  in- 
dividual elements,  the  constitution  or  discipline  not  pro- 
viding for  the  emergency,  or  having  crumbled  into  dust. 

First.  The  constitution  is  in  force.  The  time  and  place . 
of  the  yearly  meeting  are  fixed*  April,  not  October,  is 
the  one ;  Arch  street,  not  Green  street,  is  the  other. 
Neither  can  be  changed  without  the  resolution  and  au- 
thority of  the  yearly  meeting.  No  such  authority  was 
given.  On  the  contrary,  the  resolve  of  that  body  was, 
that  the  next  yearly  meeting  should  assemble  on  the  third 
second  day  of  April,  at  Arch  street,  at  the  usual  time  and 
place,  "  if  the  Lord  permit;"  and  these  latter  words  did 
not,  as  is  asserted  in  the  answer  of  Stacy  Decow,  consti- 
tute "  a  contingent  adjournment,"  nor  contemplate  "  the 
circumstance  ....  of  Friends  not  being  again  permitted 
to  assemble  at  that  time ;"  but  were  designed  to  acknow- 
ledge their  humble  and  entire  dependence  on  the  Great 
Master  of  assemblies,  without  whose  permission  they 
neither  expected  nor  wished  again  to  convene.  A  special 
meeting  of  the  yearly  meeting  is  an  anomaly,  and  unpro- 
vided for.  Neither  the  few  nor  the  many,  have  power' 
given  to  them  to  convoke  such  meeting.  If  then,  the; 
constitution  was  in  force,  the  meeting  in  October  was  not; 
the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia. 

Seco7id.  Let  us  now  suppose  the  compact  broken,  the 
constitution  dissolved,  and  the  disjoined  members  at  Ub-- 
erty  to  act  from  individual  minds.  Was  the  meeting  en- 
titled to  the  name  it  then  assumed  1  There  are  three  in- 
surmountable obstacles.  First,  it  was  not  convened  as  the 
ancient  yearly  meeting.  Second,  the  members  at  large, 
the  only  constituent  parts,  or  in  other  words,  the  individ- 


55 

ual  elements,  were  not,  and  a  portion  of  them  only  was, 
invited  to  assemble.  Third,  it  was  not  composed  or  con- 
stituted as  the  ancient  yearly  meeting. 

First.    This  October  meeting  was  not  called,  nor  did 
it  come  together  as  the  ancient  yearly  meeting.     The 
name  which  it  thought  proper  then  to  assume,  or  which 
was  then  conferred  upon  it,  cannot  help  this  deficiency. 
In  the  call  which  was  issued,  the  faintest  idea  is  not  held 
out  that  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  was  to  be  convoked ; 
no  hint  is  given  that  the  ancient  meeting  was  to  be  reor- 
ganized, or  to  be  settled  on  its  ancient  foundations  and 
principles.     On  the  contrary,  the  idea  is  conveyed  with 
comprehensible  distinctness,  that  a  new  yearly  meeting 
was  to  be  formed.     The  address,  which  bears  date  in 
June,  contains,  in  the  first  place,  an  avowal  of  the  design 
or  object  in  view,  "  to  regain  harmony  and   tranquilhty 
....  by  withdrawing  ourselves,  not  from  the  society  of 
Friends,  nor  from  the  exercise  of  its  salutary  discipline, 
but  from  religious  communion  with  those  who  have  intro- 
duced, and  seem   disposed  to  continue,  such  disorders 
among  us."     There  is  nothing  here  of  remaining  in  the 
ancient  yearly  meeting,  nor  of  continuing  or  reorganizing 
it.   But  let  us  proceed.   "  We  therefore  ....  have  agreed 
to  propose  for  your  consideration,  the  propriety  and  ex- 
pediency of  holding,"  what?    The  ancient  yearly  meet- 
ing?   No.    "  A  yearly  meeting  for  Friends  in  unity  with 
us,  residing  within  the  bounds  of  those  quarterly  meetings 
heretofore  represented  in  the  yearly  meeting  held  in  Phil- 
adelphia."    And  farther,  "It  is  recommended  that  the 
quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  which  may  be  prepared 
for  such  a  measure,  should  appoint  representatives  to  meet 
in  Philadelphia  on  the  third  second  day  in  tenth  month 
next,  at  ten  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in  company  with 
other  members  favourable  to  our  views,  there  to  hold  a 
yearly  meeting  of  men   and  women   Friends,  upon  the 
principles  of  the  early  professors  of  our  name."     In  this 
clause  are  several  prominent  points.     First,  the  meet- 
ing was   to   be   composed  of  representatives  from  the 
monthly  as  well  as  the  quarterly  meetings.    Now,  the  an- 
cient yearly  meeting  had  no  representatives  from  monthly 
meetings;  certainly,  since  the  discipline,  as  adopted  and 
published  in  1806.     A  continuance  of  the  yearly  meeting 
could  not  then  have  been  contemplated,  nor  a  reorganiza- 
tion of  it,  nor  a  settling  of  it  on  its  ancient  principles. 


56 

Second,  It  was  to  be,  not  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting, 
but  "  a  yearly  meeting  of  men  and  women  Friends ;" 
and  thirdly,  It  was  to  be  formed  on  the  principles  of  the 
early  professors  of  our  name,  not  on  the  platform  of  the 
yearly  meeting,  as  erected  by  the  book  of  discipline. 

Second.  This  meeting  in  October,  was  not  so  convened 
as  to  entitle  it  to  assume  the  name,  and  to  take  the  place 
of  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting. 

If  the  yearly  meeting  was  dissolved,  and  the  society 
brought  back  to  a  mere  collection  of  individuals,  if  the 
state  of  things  were  such  that  individual  minds  might  now 
form  anew  or  reorganize,  as  they  are  said  to  have  orig- 
inally formed,  it  is  a  very  clear  proposition,  and  not  to  be 
controverted,  that  all  the  individuals  of  the  society  ought 
to  have  been  called;  none  should  have. been  directly  or 
indirectly  excluded.  Whatever  dissensions  had  risen  up, 
whatever  animosities  existed,  the  former  members  of  the 
society  remained  such,  and  those  who  did  not  meet  in  Green 
street,  in  person  or  by  representatives,  were  as  much  as  they 
who  did,  members  and  individual  elements.  All,  then,  had  a 
right  to  be  called,  all  must  be  called,  all  must  be  afforded 
an  opportunity  to  assemble,  or  no  convocation  can  be  law- 
ful, the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting  cannot  be  there. 
Now,  the  recommendation  or  invitation  to  assemble,  was 
not  comprehensive,  but  exclusive,  not  general,  but  limited. 
A  particular  class  or  description  only  were  invited  ;  all 
the  rest  were  debarred  and  shut  out.  The  maxim,  expres- 
sio  unius.  est  exclusio  alterius,  is  adopted  in  the  law,  only 
because  it  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense.  For  whom 
was  the  meeting?  Who  were  to  attend?  "  For  Friends 
in  unity  with  us."  Not  for  Friends  in  general,  not  for  the 
members  of  the  ancient  yearly  meeting,  but  for  such  only 
as  were  in  unity  with  those  who  made  the  proposal.  Who 
were  invited  to  send  representatives?  All  the  monthly 
and  quarterly  meetings  ?  By  no  means.  "  The  monthly 
and  quarterly  meetings  which  may  he  p-epared  for  such  a 
measure."  This  language  cannot  be  misunderstood  or 
misconstrued ;  and  besides  the  representatives,  for  as  we 
have  heretofore  seen,  all  who  were  led  by  inclination  or 
duty,  came  in  their  individual  capacity  to  the  yearly 
meeting,  who  were  to  meet  in  company  with  them  ?  All 
the  society  ?  All  ether  members  ?  Not  so.  "Other  mem- 
bers favourable  to  our  views."  Was  then  the  yearly 
meeting  convoked?    Was  even  a  general  meeting  of  the 


57 

society  of  Friends  called  ?  Ingenuity  cannot  pervert,  blind- 
ness cannot  mistake,  such  perspicuity.  If  I  may  be  per- 
mitted to  use  a  term,  because  it  is  so  common  as  to  be  well 
understood,  and  not  because  I  mean  to  make  any  offensive 
application  of  it,  the  call  was  for  the  meeting  of  a  party. 
I  do  not  intend  to  say,  a  right  party,  or  a  wrong  party, 
for^the  subject  will,  in  its  nature,  admit  of  either  qualifica- 
tion, but  a  party.  And  such  a  convocation,  of  a  poition 
only  of  the  society,  the  rest  whether  majority  or  minor- 
ity, or  however  small  in  comparative  numbers,  being  ex- 
cluded, cannot  be  the  true  and  legitimate  yearly  meeting, 
cannot  be  the  ancient  yearly  meeting  reorganized  and  set- 
tled again  on  its  ancient  foundations  and  principles. 

ITiird.     The  meeting  in  October  was  not  composed  or 
constructed  as  the  yearly  meeting. 

I  have,  incidentally,  adverted  to  this  subject,  in  show- 
ing the  nature  of  the  call,  or  who  were  invited  to  attend 
the  meeting ;  but  1  now  present  it  as  a  characteristic  dif- 
ference between  this  assemblage  and  the  yearly  meeting. 
The  yearly  meeting  is  composed  of  members  of  two 
classes,  individuals,  and  the  quarterly  meetings;  the  latter 
being  represented  by  delegates.  Such  is  not  only  the  case 
since  the  present  book  of  discipline  was  published  by  the 
society,  but  was  the  principle  of  organization  when  this 
meeting  was  first  established.  Gough,  the  historian,  says, 
"  In  the  year  1669,  it  was  found  expedient  and  agreed 
upon,  to  hold  a  general  meeting  in  London,  representative 
of  the  whole  body  in  England,  and  all  other  parts  where 
any  of  the  society  were  settled,  which,  having  been 
thenceforth  held  annually,  is  denominated  the  yearly  meet- 
ing in  London.  This  meeting  is  constituted  of  repre- 
sentatives deputed  from  each  quarterly  meeting  in  Eng- 
land, from  the  half  yearly  meeting  in  Ireland,  and  some- 
times from  other  parts,  yet  without  restraining  any  mem- 
ber in  unity  with  the  society  from  attending."  (2  Gough's 
History,  163.)  But  the  meeting  in  Green  street  was  com- 
posed of  three  classes,  individuals,  quarterly  meetings, 
and  monthly  meetings;  some  of  the  latter,  as  bodies. 
Mount  Holly,  Chesterfield  and  Radnor,  being  represented 
by  their  delegates.  (Exhib.  9.)  It  is  no  answer,  that  mem- 
bers of  this  society  are  entitled  to  sit  in  their  individual 
capacity,  and  therefore,  whether  there,  as  individuals  or 
delegates,  can  make  no  difference.  This  result  does  not 
follow.  The  representatives  alone,  it  will  be  remembered, 


58 

perform  the  important  service  of  nominating  a  clerk  to 
the  meeting.  And  hence,  the  clerk  who  acted  for,  and 
was  appointed  by  this  meeting  was  nominated,  at  the  least 
in  part,  by  the  representatives  of  monthly  meetings,  who 
were  irregularly  there.  And  the  incongruity  of  this  pro- 
cedure farther  appears  from  this,  that  the  individual  mem- 
bers first  appointed,  in  their  monthly  meetings,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  those  meetings,  and  then  themselves  attend- 
ed as  individual  members.  It  is  manifest,  therefore,  the 
October  meeting  was  not  composed  as  a  yearly  meeting 
should,  and  could  only,  have  been. 

In  the  course  of  this  investigation,  it  has  repeatedly 
occurred  to  me,  and  every  time  with  increasing  force, 
that  the  grounds  of  division,  if  no  difference  of  religious 
faith  existed,  were  of  an  inferior  and  evanescent  nature. 
It  seems  to  me,  though,  perhaps,  lam  unable,  not  being  a 
member  of  the  society,  properly  to  appreciate  the  matter, 
that  patience,  forbearance,  brotherly  kindness  and  charity, 
the  meek  and  mild  spirit  which  has  been  believed  to  char- 
acterize and  adorn  the  genuine  Friend,  would,  under  the 
smiles  and  blessing  of  Providence,  have  wrought  out  a 
perfect  reconciUation,  have  brought  again  these  discord- 
ant minds  to  the  wonted  harmony,  and  the  unity  of  spirit 
would  have  again  prevailed.  II",  indeed,  a  difference  of  faith 
and  doctrine  had  grown  up  and  become  strong,  if  either 
portion  had  fallen  off  from  the  ancient  principles  of  their 
church,  and  I  use  the  term,  here,  as  did  Fox  and  Barclay 
and  Penn,  the  breach  is  not  the  subject  of  surprise,  and  it 
must,  with  no  less  truth  than  regret,  be  said,  "  between 
us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed."  In  the  pleadings 
of  this  cause,  in  the  extended  volumes  of  testimony,  and 
in  the  laborious  arguments  of  the  counsel,  I  do  not  re- 
member any  charge  that  the  members  of  the  society,  who 
remain  connected  with  the  Arch  street  meeting,  have  de- 
parted from  the  doctrines  and  principles  of  Friends,  as 
stated  by  their  founder  and  his  early  followers ;  and  I  re- 
joice that  I  have  not  been  constrained  to  inquire  into  the 
charge  of  departure,  so  freely  and  frequently  urged 
against  the  members  of  the  Green  street  meeting.  In  any 
remarks  I  have  made,  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as 
asserting  "or  countenancing  such  a  charge.  Nor  do  I 
mean  to  say,  they  either  had  or  had  not  grounds  or  rea- 
sons sufficient  to  induce  a  separation.  With  these,  I  do 
not  profess,  for  this  court,  in  the  present  cause,  to  inter- 


59 

"  fere.  It  is  with  the  legal  consequences  of  their  acts,  we 
are  to  concern  ourselves.  A  separation  of  a  portion  does 
not  necessarily  destroy  or  impair,  nor,  as  it  respects  legal 
existence,  even  weaken  the  original  institution.  This  doc- 
trine was  distinctly  asserted  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  this 
state,  in  the  case  of  Den  against  Bolton  and  others, 
which  arose  on  the  division  in  the  reformed  Dutch  Church 
of  the  United  States. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  am  brought,  by  the  most  careful, 
faithful,  and  minute  investigation  of  which  I  am  capable, 
to  the  result,  that  the  Arch  street  meeting  was,  and  the 
Green  street  meeting  was  not,  the  Philadelphia  yearly 
meeting  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

We  are  now  to  look  for  the  consequences  on  the  cause 
before  the  court.  We  have  seen  that  every  preparative 
meeting  within  the  states  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jer- 
sey, which  is,  through  and  by  its  connecting  links,  con- 
nected with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  yearly  meeting  of 
Philadelphia,  is  a  preparative  meeting  of  the  people  called 
Quakers;  and  any  preparative  meeting  or  assemblage  of 
persons  calling  themselves  a  preparative  meeting,  not  thus 
connected  and  subordinate,  is  not  a  preparative  meeting 
of  that  people,  within  the  meaning  of  their  constitution 
and  discipline,  and  within  the  meaning  of  the  subscription 
^  to  the  school  in  the  present  case,  or  in  other  words,  the 
instrument  whereby  the  trust  fund  was  created.  We  have 
farther  seen,  that  the  preparative  meeting  having  author- 
ity to  appoint  the  treasurer  of  the  school  fund,  is  the  pre- 
parative meeting  of  Chesterfield,  connected  with,  and  sub- 
ordinate to,  the  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  of  Philadel- 
phia. We  have  seen  that  the  preparative  meeting  where- 
by Stacy  Decow  was  appointed  treasurer,  was  not,  at 
the  time  of  that  appointment,  connected  with,  and  subor- 
-  dinate  to,  the  Arch  street  meeting,  but  had  previously  dis- 
united itself  therefrom,  and  connected  itself  with  the 
Green  street  meeting ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  not  the 
Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  at  Cross- 
wicks,  meant  and  mentioned  in  the  establishment  of  the 
school  l''und,  and  had  not  competent  authority  to  discharge 
Joseph  Hendrickson  and  appoint  a  successor. 

There  is,  then,  no  successor  to  the  person  named  as 
treasurer  in  the  bond  and  mortgage,  and  he  has,  conse- 
quently, the  legal  right  to  recover  the  money. 

I  do,  therefore,  respectfully  recommend  to  His  Excel- 


60 

lency  the  Chancellor,  to  decree  upon  this  bill  of  inter- 
pleader, that  the  principal  and  interest  mentioned  in  the 
said  bond,  and  intended  to  be  secured  by  the  said  mort- 
gage, of  right  belong,  and  are  payable  to  the  said  Joseph 
Hendrickson,  and  that  he  be  permitted  to  proceed  on  his 
original  bill  of  complaint,  or  otherwise,  agreeably  to  the 
rules  and  practice  of  the  court  of  Chancery. 

CHARLES  EWING. 


Opinion  of  Associate  Justice  Drake. 

The  present  controversy  has  grown  out  of  the  prosecu- 
tion of  a  certain  bond  and  mortgage,  bearing  dale  the  sec- 
ond day  of  the  fourth  month  (April),  A.  D.  1821,  executed 
by  Thomas  L.  Shotwell  to  Joseph  Hendrickson,  Trea- 
surer of  the  School  Fund  of  Crosswicks'  Meeting,  to  se- 
cure the  payment  of  two  thousand  dollars,  with  interest, 
at  six  per  cent.,  to  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson,  Trea- 
surer as  aforesaid,  or  his  successor,  or  to  his  certain  at- 
torney, executor,  administrator,  or  assigns.  Upon  this 
bond,  the  interest  had  been  duly  paid  until  the  second  day 
of  April,  A.  D.  1827.  The  interest  from  that  date,  to- 
gether with  the  principal,  composes  the  sum  now  in  dis- 
pute. 

It  is  admitted,  that  the  money,  for  which  these  securi- 
ties were  given,  is  part  of  a  fund,  the  principal  part  of 
which  was  raised  about  the  year  1792,  by  the  voluntary 
subscriptions  of  a  considerable  number  of  the  members 
of  the  preparative  meeting  of  the  people  called  Quakers, 
at  Crossw-icks,  in  the  township  of  Chesterfield,  county  of 
Burlington  and  state  of  New  Jersey ;  for  the  purpose  of 
creating  an  interest,  or  annuity,  "to  be  apyjlied  to  the  edu- 
cation of  such  children,  as  now  do,  or  hereafter  shall,  be- 
long to  the  same  preparative  meeting,  whose  parents  are 
not,  or  shall  not  be,  of  ability  to  pay  for  their  education." 
And  this  fund  was  to  be  "  under  the  direction  of  the 
trustees  of  the  said  school,"  (the  school  then  established 
at  Crosswicks)  "  now,  or  hereafter,  to  be  chosen  by  the 
said  preparative  meeting." 

It  is  further  admitted,  that  previous  to  the  year  1827, 
there  was  but  one  preparative  meeting,  of  the  people 
called  Quakers,  at  Crosswicks;    although  it  was  some- 


61 

times  designated  as  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting, 
at  Crosswicks ;  and  at  other  times,  as  [the  preparative 
meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks.  It  was  an  associa- 
tion, or  meeting,  of  the  rehgious  society  of  Friends ;  and 
it  had  the  power  to  appoint  the  trustees  of  the  school,  the 
treasurer,  and  other  officers  of  the  association. 

Joseph  Hendrickson,  one  of  the  above  named  parties, 
was  appointed  treasurer  of  this  meeting  in  1816,  and  was 
continued  in  that  office,  as  all  parties  agree,  until  the  sum- 
mer or  autumn  of  1827,  when  disputes  arose  in  that  meet- 
ing, and  others  with  which  it  stood  connected,  which  re- 
sulted in  the  separation  of  one  part  of  its  members  from 
the  other  part.  One  party,  or  division  of  that  body,  have 
continued  the  said  Joseph  Hendrickson  in  the  office  of 
treasurer.  The  other  party,  in  the  month  of  January, 
1828,  appointed  Stacy  Decow,  another  of  the  above 
named  parties,  to  the  same  office,  and  have  continued  him 
in  that  office  until  the  present  time. 

Both  Hendrickson  and  Decow,  claim  to  be  the  treasurer 
of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  and,  in  that  ca- 
pacity, to  have  the  custody  of  this  fund.  As  both  have 
been  appointed,  although  by  different  bodies,  or  different 
parts  of  the  same  body,  the  title  to  the  office  must  depend 
upon  the  appointing  power ;  that  is,  the  preparative  meet- 
ing. And  inasmuch  as  two  several  bodies  pretend,  each, 
to  be  the  true  preparative  meeting,  and  one  only  is  con- 
templated as  the  trustee  of  this  fund,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  inquire  which  is  the  true  preparative  meeting. 

It  appears  by  the  testimony,  that  on  the  twenty-seventh 
day  of  December,  A.  D.  1827,  the  Chesterfield  prepara- 
tive meeting  of  Friends  was  divided,  by  the  minority  of 
the  members,  assembled  at  that  time,  withdrawing  to  an- 
other house,  leaving  the  majority,  with  the  clerk,  at  the 
usual  place  of  meeting.  They  continued  their  business 
there ;  and  the  minority  organized  anew,  or  held  another 
meeting,  having  appointed  a  new  clerk  to  act  for  them. 

If  this  preparative  meeting  were  an  independent  body, 
acting  without  the  influence  of  any  conventional  principle 
operating  upon  this  point,  the  act  of  the  minority  on  this 
occasion  would  not  aflfect  the  powers  of  the  majority  who 
remained  in  session ;  however  it  might  expose  itself,  and 
the  members  composing  it,  to  disabilities.  But  the  right 
to  make  appointments,  and  to  isxercise  the  other  functions 
21 


62 

t)f  the  preparative  meeting,  would  still  continue  with  the 
larger  party.* 

But  the  preparative  meeting  is  not  an  independent  body, 
but  a  component  part  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends. 
Hence,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  its  connexion  with  the 
society  of  Friends,  and  the  history  of  that  society,  so  far 
as  it  influences  the  separation  in  this  preparative  meeting, 
in  order  to  determine  the  question,  which  of  these  bodies 
is  the  true  preparative  meeting ;  and  is,  of  course,  entitled 
to  appoint  a  treasurer,  and  to  manage  this  fund. 

The  society  of  Friends,  as  it  existed  at  the  time  when 
this  school  fund  was  created,  and  thence  down  to  the 
year  1827,  was  an  association  of  christians,  bound  together 
by  a  distinct  government,  peculiar  testimonies,  and,  as  one 
party  contends,  by  certain  religious  doctrines,  deemed  by 
them  fundamental.  For  their  government,  the  Friends, 
residing  in  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  as  early  as  the 
year  1689,  established  a  general  meeting,  called  a  yearly 
meeting,  in  which  the  numerous  inferior  meetings  have 
been  represented,  and  which  all  the  members  of  the  soci- 
ety have  had  a  right  to  attend,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  333.)  That 
yearly  meeting,  soon  after  its  institution,  adopted  and  pub- 
lished certain  articles  of  government,  called  "  Rules  of  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Yearly  Meeting  of  Friends,  held  in  Phila- 
delphia." This  is  acknowledged  by  all  the  parties  to  this 
suit,  as  their  system  of  government ;  and  by  that,  so  far 
as  its  provisions  extend,  all  profess  to  be  willing  to  be  tried. 
In  this  publication,  we  find  that  their  meetings  for  disci- 
pline are  declared  to  be ;  (Intro.  Discip.  3.)  "  First,  pre- 
parative meetings ;  which  commonly  consist  of  members 
of  a  meeting  for  worship ;  second,  monthly  meetings,  each 
of  which  commonly  consists  of  several  preparative  meet- 
ings; third,  quarterly  meetings,  each  of  which  consists  of 
^veral  monthly  meetings ;  and,  fourth,  the  yearly  meet- 
ing, which  comprises  the  whole." 

And  the  connexion  and  subordination  of  these  meetings, 
are  declared  to  be  thus;  (Discip.  31.)  "Preparative  meetings 
are  accountable  to  the  monthly;  monthly,  to  the  quarterly; 
and  the  quarterly,  to  the  yearly  meeting.  So  that,  if  the 
yearly  meeting  be  at  any  time  dissatisfied  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  any  inferior  meeting ;  or  the  quarterly  meet- 
ing with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its  monthly  meetings ; 

*  7  Serg.  and  Rawle,  460  ;  5  Binney,  485  ;  5  Johnson,  39 ;  1  Bos.  and 
Pttl  229 ;  2  Dessaus^eure,  583 ;  16  Mass.  418. 


63 

or  a  moiithly  meeting  with  the  proceedings  of  either  of  its 
preparative  meetings ;  such  meeting  or  meetings,  ought, 
with  readiness  and  meekness,  to  render  an  account  there- 
of, when  required." 

This  preparative  meeting  at  Chesterfield,  was  establish- 
ed at  an  early  period.  It  was,  ever  since  its  origin,  con- 
nected with,  and,  in  the  sense  of  the  book  of  discipline, 
subordinate  to  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting ;  which 
was  subordinate  to  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting ;  and 
that,  to  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting. 

Such  were  the  connexions  sustained  by  this  preparative 
meeting,  at  the  commencement  of  the  year  1827.  I  said, 
that  we  must  review  the  history  of  the  whole  body,  so  far 
as  it  operated  upon  the  division  of  the  Chesterfield  meet- 
ing, at  the  close  of  that  year.  During  the  same  year,  a 
division  took  place  in  the  Philadelphia  yearly  meeting, 
which  was  followed  up  by  divisions  in  all  the  subordinate 
meetings,  or  at  least  all,  with  which  this  preparative  meet- 
ing was  connected  in  its  subordination.  The  division  so 
resulted,  that  as  early  as  tenth  month,  1827,  there  were 
two  yearly  meetings  in  existence,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  622;  vol. 
Evid.  457.)  each  claiming  to  be  the  true  yearly  meeting 
of  the  society  of  Friends ;  one  assembling  in  Arch  street, 
and  the  other  in  Green  street,  Philadelphia.  Which  of 
these  two  meetings  was  the  head  to  which  the  inferior 
meetings  should  account,  &c.  according  to  the  constitution 
of  the  society?  They  could  not  both  be.  For  in  this  case, 
it  would  not  only  be  hard,  but  impossible,  for  the  inferior 
meetings  to  serve  two  masters.  But  which  should  it  be? 
Upon  this  point,  the  members  of  the  inferior  meetings  could 
not  agree.  And  hence,  a  corresponding  division  took  place 
in  the  Burlington  quarterly  meeting,  in  eleventh  month, 
1827,  (vol.  2.  Evid.  207,  8.)  which  resulted  in  two  distinct 
quarterly  meetings ;  one  assembling  at  the  city  of  Burling- 
ton, and  the  other  at  Chesterfield.  And  a  division  also  took 
place,  in  ninth  or  tenth  month,  1827,  in  Chesterfield  month- 
ly meeting.  A  dispute  arising,  respecting  the  propriety 
of  granting  a  certificate  of  membership  to  an  individual, 
to  be  presented  to  Green  street  monthly  meeting ;  which 
dispute  was  founded  on  the  question,  whether  that  meeting 
still  retained  its  connexion  with  the  Arch  street  yearly 
meeting,  or  had  joined  that  of  Green  street;  the  clerk, 
David  Clark,  not  acting  in  reference  to  this  matter,  with 
the  promptness  desired  by  the  party  in  favour  of  making 


64 

the  certificate,  they  considered  him  as  refusing,  or  at  feasf, 
as  neglecting  to  serve  the  meeting,  and  at  once  called  an- 
other person,  Jediah  Middleton,  to  the  chair,  to  serve 
them  as  clerk.  (Vol.  1.  Evid.  337 ;  vol.  2.  Ibid.  284.)  Af- 
ter which,  the  two  parties  conducted  their  business  sepa- 
rately ;  the  minority  and  old  clerk,  adhering  to  the  Bur- 
lington quarterly  meeting,  in  connexion  with  the  Arch 
street  yearly  meeting,  and  the  other  party  sending  repre- 
sentatives to  the  Green  street  yearly  meeting,  (vol-  2. 
Evid.  296,  7.  323.) 

It  was  after  this  complete  division  of  the  Chesterfield 
monthly  meeting,  that  the  transaction  took  place  in  the 
preparative  meeting  before  noticed.  These  meetings  were 
composed,  in  some  measure,  of  the  same  persons.  The 
clerk,  James  Brown,  and  many  other  persons  there,  had 
previously  manifested  their  partiality  to  one  or  the  other, 
of  the  great  parties  which  had  grown  up  in  the  society, 
and  to  their  respective  yearly  meetings.  In  making  out 
answers  to  the  queries,  which  were,  by  the  monthly  meet- 
ing, in  eleventh  month,  1827,  addressed  to  the  preparative 
meeting,  according  to  the  book  of  discipline,  page  eighty- 
nine,  the  clerk  of  the  preparative  meeting  had  made  re- 
turn to  Jediah  Middleton,  the  clerk  of  that  monthly  meet- 
ing, connected  with  the  Chesterfield  quarter,  and  Green 
street  yearly  meeting ;  (vol.  2.  Evid.  323.)  thus  acknow- 
ledging the  meeting  of  which  he  was  clerk,  to  be  a  branch 
of  that  yearly  meeting.  He  had  also  denied  the  authority 
of  the  monthly  meeting,  of  which  David  Clark  was  clerk, 
(vol.  1.  Evid.  325 ;  vol.  2.  Ibid.  323.)  In  eleventh  month, 
1827,  the  Burlington  quarter,  connected  with  the  Arch 
street  yearly  meeting,  appointed  a  committee  to  visit  its 
subordinate  meetings.  (Vol.  1.  Evid.  325,  6.)  On  the 
twenty-seventh  of  twelfth  month  (December)  that  com- 
mittee presented  themselves  before  the  Chesterfield  pre- 
parative meeting  then  assembled.  A  committee  also  pre- 
sented itself  from  the  Burlington  quarter,  connected  with 
the  Green  street  yearly  meeting.  An  inquiry  was  made 
of  the  clerk,  or  meeting,  in  what  connexion  this  prepara- 
tive meeting  was  then  acting.  No  direct  reply  was  given. 
It  being  manifest  that  the  harmony  of  the  meeting  was 
broken,  and  all  parties  knowing  the  predilections  of  them- 
selves and  others  to  be  so  fixed,  that  it  was  useless  to  spend 
time  in  debate,  the  minority,  wishing  to  sanction  no  pro- 
ceeding which  would  change  their  connexion  or  allegiance, 


65 

withdrew ;  protesting  against  any  forfeiture  of  their  rights 
thereby.  Since  which,  the  two  parties  once  composing 
that  preparative  meeting,  have  each  held  its  own  meeting, 
in  subordination  to  their  respective  monthly,  quarterly, 
and  yearly  meetings,  as  before  stated. 

Much  investigation  was  made  into  the  precise  conduct 
of  the  respective  parties,  in  effecting  these  divisions;  but 
I  do  not  regard  the  particular  acts,  or  formalities,  observed 
by  these  subordinate  meetings,  as  of  much  consequence, 
seeing  there  is  a  complete  separation  of  the  society  into  two 
distinct  bodies,  acting  under  separate  governments;  al- 
though each  still  professes  to  adhere  to  the  ancient  disci- 
pline and  worship.  Our  inquiry  now  must  be,  whether 
each  of  these  bodies  is  to  be  considered  as  the  society  of 
Friends,  contemplated  in  this  trust,  or  only  one  of  them : 
And  if  but  one,  which  is  that  one  ?  And  which  yearly  meet- 
ing represents  it  ?  For  if  there  be  but  one  society,  and  one 
yearly  meeting  which  answers  to  the  trust,  the  inferior 
meetings  must  follow  the  fate  of  those  to  which  they  stand 
connected.  Every  Friend  is  a  member  of  his  yearly  meet- 
ing. It  is  the  yearly  meeting  which  overlooks,  controls, 
and  exerts  a  care  over  all  that  are  in  connexion  with  it ; 
which  hears  their  appeals  in  the  last  resort;  which  pre- 
serves their  uniformity  in  discipline,  and  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  their  pecuhar  testimonies;  in  a  word,  which 
identifies  them  as  a  body  of  Friends.  And  in  order  to  de- 
termine which  is  the  true  preparative  meeting,  at  Cross- 
wicks,  we  must  ascertain  which  is  the  true  yearly  meet- 
ing o^  Friends,  held  in  Philadelphia. 

The  yearly  meeting  was  established  in  Burlington,  in  the 
year  1681.  (vol.  1.  Proud's  Hist.  Penn.  160,  6J.)  It  was 
held  alternately,  at  Burlington  and  Philadelphia,  from  1684, 
to  1761 ;  after  which  it  was  removed  entirely  to  Philadel- 
phia, and  was  held  there  annually  and  in  great  harmony, 
until  within  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years;  within  which 
time,  jealousies  have  arisen  among  the  members,  which 
increased,  until  the  meeting  held  in  fourth  month,  1827, 
which  was  the  last  held  by  the  united  body.  The  dissen- 
sions, previous  to,  and  at  that  meeting,  came  to  such  a 
height,  that  one  party  withdrew,  and  took  measures  for 
the  formation  of  a  new  yearly  meeting, as  the  other  party 
insist,  or  as  they  say,  for  the  reorganization  and  purifica^ 
tion  of  the  old  one.  It  will  be  necessary  to  look  a  little 
into  particulars,  to  discover  the  character  of  this  transaa-* 
21* 


66 

tion,  and  what  should  be  its  effect  upon  the  present  case. 
And  I  would  here  observe,  that  I  use  the  word  party,  or 
parties, "  Orthodox"  and  "Hicksite,"  in  this  opinion,  merely 
to  designate  individuals,  or  bodies  of  men,  acting  together, 
and  not  with  any  reference  to  the  feelings,  motives,  or 
principles,  upon  which  they  may  have  acted. 

Questions  of  importance  were  expected  to  arise  at  the 
yearly  meeting  of  IS'ST,  upon  which  disagreement  was 
anticipated.  The  respective  parties  made  such  prepara- 
tions for  the  approaching  business  of  that  meeting  as  they 
deemed  proper.  The  clerk,  being  the  officer  who  collects 
the  sense  of  the  meeting  on  the  questions  submitted  to  it, 
and  declares  its  decisions,  was  justly  considered  as  holding 
an  important  station,  which  neither  was  willing  to  have 
filled,  by  a  person  unfriendly  to  its  views.  The  nomina- 
tion of  a  clerk  to  the  yearly  meeting,  was  the  appropriate 
business  of  the  representatives  from  the  quarterly  meet- 
ings, (vol.  1.  Evid.  68,  217.)  In  the  meeting  held  by  them 
for  that  purpose,  Samuel  Bettle  and  John  Comly  were  nom- 
inated. Each  party  advocated  the  pretensions  of  its  fa- 
vourite candidate,  but  neither  candidate  was  agreed  upon.. 
Upon  its  being  reported  to  the  yearly  meeting,  that  the  re- 
presentatives were  unable  to  agree,  some  person  suggested, 
that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  society  for  the  old  clerk  to 
act  until  a  new  one  was  appointed,  (vol.  l.Evid.  68,218.) 
In  this,  there  was,  at  least,  a  partial  acquiescence  of  the 
opponents  of  the  old  clerk,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  69,  218.  vol.  2. 
ife.  21,  267,  392.)  He  took  his  seat  at  the  table,  and  John 
Comly,  the  rival  candidate,  took  his,  as  assistant  clerk. 
The  next  morning,  the  latter  expressed  a  repugnance  to 
serve  the  meeting,  made  up,  as  he  stated,  "  of  two  irrecon- 
cileable  parties  ;'^  but  for  some  reason  or  other,  he  again 
acquiesced,  and  acted  as  assistant  clerk  the  residue  of  the 
meeting.  One  other  subject  of  dispute  occurred  towards 
the  close  of  that  meeting.  It  was  respecting  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  visit  the  inferior  meetings.  To  this,, 
there  was  considerable  opposition,  but  the  clerk  finally  re- 
corded a  minute  in  favour  of  the  appointment.  After 
which,  the  meeting  adjourned,  "  to  meet  at  the  same  time 
and  place  the  next  year."  (vol.  1.  Evid.  70.) 

On  the  nineteenth,  twentieth,  and  twenty-first  of  April, 
1 827,  and  during  the  sitting  of  the  yearly  meeting,  another 
meeting  was  held  in  Green  street,  at  which  an  address  to 
the  society  of  Friends  was  agreed  upon ;  which  was  sub- 


67 

scribed,  by  direction  and  in  behalf  of  said  meeting,  by  John 
Comly,  and  others ;  in  which  address,  after  alluding  to  the 
divided  state  of  the  society  in  doctrine  and  in  feeling,  and 
to   measures  of  the  yearly  meeting  deemed  oppressive, 
they  state  their  conviction,  "that  the  period  has  fully  come, 
in  which  we  ought  to  look  towards  making  a  quiet  retreat 
from  this  scene  of  confusion."  (vol.  2.  Evid.  454.)    They 
adjourned,  to  meet  again  in  the  same  place  on  the  fourth 
day  of  sixth  month  (June),  1827.    At  which  second  meet- 
ing, they  agreed  on  and  published  a  second  address,  in 
which,  after  adverting  to  disorders  and  divisions  in  the 
society,  and  transactions  of  the  late  yearly  meeting,  against 
the  sense,  as  they  considered,  of  the  larger  part  of  that 
body,  they  add,  "  Friends  have  viewed  this  state  of  things 
among  us,  with   deep  concern   and   exercise,   patiently 
waiting  in  the  hope,  that  time  and  reflection  would  con- 
vince our  brethren  of  the  impropriety  of  such  a  course, 
and  that  being  favoured  to  see  the  evil  consequences  of 
such  conduct,  they  might  retrace  their  steps.     But  hith- 
erto, we  have  waited  in  vain.     Time  and  opportunity  for 
reflection  have  been  amply  afforded,  but  have  not  pro- 
duced the  desirable  results.     On  the  contrary,  the  spirit  of 
discord  and  confusion  have  gained  strength,  and  to  us 
there  appears  now,  to  be  no  way  to  regain  the  harmony 
and  tranquillity  of  the  body,  but  by  withdrawing  ourselves, 
not  from  the  society  of  Friends,  nor  from  the  exercise  of 
its  salutary  discipline,  but  from  religious  communion  with 
those  who  have  introduced,  and  seemed  disposed  to  con- 
tinue, such  disorders  among  us."     The  address  concludes, 
by  proposing  for  consideration,  "  the  propriety  and  expe- 
diency of  holding  a  yearly  meeting  of  Friends  in  unity  rvith 
us,  residing  within  the  limits  of  those  quarterly  meeting?,, 
heretofore  represented  in  the  yearly  meeting  held  in  Phi- 
ladelphia, on  the  third  second  day  in  tenth  month,  (then) 
next."  (vol.  2.  Evid.  455,  456.)  At  which  time,  a  yearly 
meeting  was  accordingly  held,  in  Green  street,  Philadel- 
phia ;  which  has  been  continued,  at  the  same  place,  from 
year  to  year;  and  which  is  the  same  yearly  meeting,  to 
which  the  Chesterfield  monthly  meeting,  of  which  Jediab 
Middleton   is   clerk,  sent  representatives,  and  to  which, 
that  meeting,  as  well  as  the  preparative  meeting  of  which 
James  Brown  is  clerk,  gave  in  their  adhesion,  (vol.  1. 
Evid.  50.) 

Which  of  these  yearly  meetings  represents  the  society 


68 

of  Friends  contemplated  in  this  trust  ?  A  first  view  strongly 
inclines  us  to  answer,  it  is  that  held  in  Arch  street.  That 
was  regularly  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  time  and 
place  next  year,  and  was  then  held  accordingly,  and  has 
been  regularly  continued  until  the  present  time.  The  other 
meeting  was  held,  first,  in  tenth  month,  1827,  by  those  who 
retreated,  or  withdrew  from  the  disorders  of  the  other,  at  a 
new  time,  and  a  new  place.  One  is  the  old  meeting,  in 
form  at  least,  and  the  other  the  7iezL\  But  some  circum- 
stances attending  this  separation,  involve  the  case  in  some 
degree  of  doubt.  Those  who  formed  the  Green  street 
meeting,  claim  to  be  the  majority.  They  complain  of  va- 
rious abuses  existing  in  the  society,  for  the  preceding  five 
years ;  that  "  measures  of  a  party  character  were  intro- 
duced" into  some  of  their  meetings  for  discipline,  and  that 
"  the  established  order  of  society  was  infringed,  by  carry- 
ing those  measures  into  execution  against  the  judgme7it,  and 
contrary  to  the  voice,  of  a  larger  part  of  the  Friends  presentJ" 
"  At  length,  the  infection  taking  a  wider  range,  appeared 
in  our  yearly  meeting,  where  its  deplorable  effects  were 
equally  conspicuous.  Means  were  recently  taken  therein 
to  orerrule  a  greater  part  of  the  representatives,  and  a  clerk 
was  imposed  upon  the  meeti/ig  without  their  concurrence  or  con- 
sentJ"  And  a  committee  was  there  appointed  to  visit  the 
quarterly  and  monthly  meetings  without  the  unity  of  the 
meeting,  and  cojitrary  to  the  solid  sense  and  judgment  of  mtich 
the  larger  number  of  members  in  attendance."  (vol.  2.  Evid. 
456.) 

In  connexion  with  these  complaints,  we  must  take  into 
consideration  some  peculiarities  in  the  mode  of  conducting- 
the  religious  meetings  of  Friends.  It  is  insisted  by  the 
Arch  street  party,  that  the  members  of  a  meeting  for  dis- 
cipline, are  not  entitled  to  equal  weight  in  their  decisions  j 
so  that  the  clerk,  whose  business  it  is  to  ascertain  and  re- 
cord the  sense  of  the  meeting,  should  not  count  the  num- 
ber of  persons  present,  and  decide  with  the  majority  of 
voices,  but  should  pay  more  attention  to  elderly,  pious,  and 
experienced  men,  than  to  those  of  an  opposite  character, 
(vol.  1.  Evid.  64,  184,  333.)  On  the  other  side,  it  is  insisted, 
that  all  have  an  equal  voice,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
clerk  to  record  the  opinion  of  the  majority,  in  numbers  j 
or  at  least,  that  he  should  not  record  a  minute  against  the 
sense  of  the  majority,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  43,  vol.2,  lb.  244.) 
Another  peculiarity,  is  this,  insisted  on  by  the  Arch  street 


69 

party,  and  apparently  conformable  to  usage,  that  until  the 
appointment  of  a  new  clerk,  the  old  one  is  to  act.  It  may 
be  easily  perceived,  that  the  effect  of  these  principles  com- 
bined, may  be  to  place  a  meeting  under  the  control  of  a 
minority,  however  small,  or  even  of  the  clerk  himself;  and 
that  the  majority  have  no  ordinary  means  of  redress,  for 
they  never  can  appoint  a  new  clerk,  and  never  can  carry 
any  measure,  however  just  and  important,  if  unreasonably 
opposed.  And  if  it  be  true,  that  through  the  operation  of 
these  principles,  the  majority,  in  the  yearly  meeting  of 
fourth  month,  1827,  was  deprived  of  its  rights,  it  would 
incline  me  very  much,  to  endeavour  to  distinguish  this 
case  from  that  of  an  ordinary  secession  from  the  govern- 
ment of  a  religious  society. 

The  complaint,  that  the  majority  was  overruled,  relates,. 
I  presume,  more  particularly  to  the  meeting  of  representa- 
tives from  the  various  quarters,  whose  business  it  was  to 
nominate  a  clerk.  But  the  proceedings  there,  may  have 
had,  and  were  evidently,  by  all  parties,  expected  to  have, 
an  important  bearing  on  the  proceedings  of  the  yearly 
meeting.  The  facts  are  somewhat  variously  stated  by  the 
different  witnesses.  But,  in  the  view  I  shall  take  of  this 
question,  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  make  a  minute  in- 
quiry into  the  facts,  or  to  decide  those  which  are  contro- 
verted. 

It  appears  distinctly,  that  no  count,  or  other  certain 
means  of  ascertaining  the  majority  was  resorted  to.  The 
Green  street  party,  however,  claim  the  benefit  of  a  pre- 
sumption that  they  were  the  majority,  arising  from  the  fact 
that  they  insisted  that  the  majority  ought  to  govern,  and 
endeavoured  to  take  measures  to  ascertain  it.  (Vol.  1. 
Evid.  372,  3.)  This  was  resisted  by  the  other  party,  either 
from  conscious  inferiority  of  numbers,  or  from  a  consci- 
entious desire,  not  to  violate  the  ancient  usage  of  the  so- 
ciety, as  to  the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  solid  sense  of  a 
meeting. 

As  to  the  true  mode  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  a  meet- 
ing, all  agree  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  clerk  to  collect  it, 
and  it  has  been  the  uniform  practice  in  the  society,  for 
him  to  do  so,  without  resorting  to  a  formal  count,  or  division 
of  parties.  (Vol.  1.  Evid.  64.  330.  458.  vol.  2.  lb.  169.  250.) 
This  society  commenced  in  persecution,  and  has,  hereto- 
fore, been  distinguished  for  its  harmony.  Believing  in  the 
operation  of  the  spirit  of  truth  on  their  minds,  nol  only  in 


70 

worship,  but  in  business,  if  properly  sought  for,  it  has  been 
their  practice  solemnly  to  seek  the  guidance  of  the  light 
within,  and  seldom,  or  never,  to  attempt  influence,  through 
ingenious  argument,  or  noisy  declamation.  Hence,  few 
have  attempted  to  speak  on  questions.  And  these  would 
naturally  be  the  experienced  and  aged.  A  few  voices  from 
such  quarters,  unopposed,  has  always  been  sufficient  to 
guide  the  clerk.  If  a  contrariety  of  views  appeared,  it 
has  not  been  the  practice  to  continue  the  debate  a  long 
time,  but  if  one  party  did  not  soon  yield,  to  postpone  the 
subject  for  further  consideration.  Hence,  it  has  doubtless 
been  usual  for  the  clerks  to  look  to  leading  men,  princi- 
pally, in  gathering  the  sense  of  the  meeting.  And  this 
practice  being  ancient  and  uniform,  and  withal  counten- 
anced by  some  of  their  most  respected  writers,  and  con- 
nected with  their  religious  faith,  strengthens  one  party  in 
its  opinion,  not  only  that  it  is  right  for  the  clerk  to  do  so, 
but  that  he  may  carry  it  so  far,  as  to  record  a  minute  in 
opposition  to  the  sense  of  the  majority  in  numbers.  (Vol  1. 
Evid.  35.  64.  184.  333.)  The  other  party  insist,  on  the 
contrary,  that  the  government  in  a  yearly  meeting,  is 
strictly  democratic ;  that  all  have  equal  rights,  and  an 
equal  voice,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  43.  vol.  2.  lb.  244.)  and  that 
however  much  the  young  and  inexperienced  may,  in  times 
past,  have  yielded  to  the  wise  and  aged,  through  courtesy, 
or  from  other  causes,  yet,  upon  a  question  of  strict  right, 
they  are  all  equal.  This  usage,  as  it  has  existed,  has  no 
doubt,  been  salutary  in  its  influence,  and  it  is  highly  ex- 
pedient to  preserve  it.  Indeed,  it  appears  to  be  of  almost 
vital  importance  to  a  religious  society  like  this ;  into 
which  members  are  admitted  without  any  public  declara- 
tion of  their  faith,  and  even  as  a  birthright.  And  yet  it 
is  difficult  to  apply  it,  and  act  upon  it,  under  such  circum- 
stances as  resulted  in  the  present  division.  Here  were 
two  great  parties,  dividing,  not  only  the  numbers,  but  the 
talents,  experience,  and  piety  of  this  society,  separated  on 
important  questions,  and  each  tenacious  of  its  opinions. 
How  shall  their  controversies  be  decided  ?  It  is  a  general 
principle  relating  to  all  associations  of  men,  that  all  the 
members  of  a  meeting,  who  have  a  right  to  a  voice  at  all, 
have  a  right  to  an  equal  voice,  unless  there  be  something 
in  the  terms  of  the  association  to  vary  those  rights.  It  is 
conceded  that  all  the  members  of  this  society,  have  the 
right  to  attend  the  yearly  meeting ;  and  that  the  clerk  may 


n 

notice  the  opinions  of  all.  (Vol.  1.  Evid.  85.  333.)  How, 
then,  is  he  to  distinguish  between  them  1  The  usage  to 
accord  superior  weight  to  superior  piety  and  experience, 
has,  indeed,  been  uniform,  yet  it  seems  to  want  that  de- 
gree of  certainty  in  its  application,  which  an  imperative  rule 
of  goverjiment  requires.  Who  is  to  judge  which  members 
have  the  most  wisdom,  or  the  greatest  share  of  the  spirit 
of  truth?  Each  individual  may  concede  it  to  another,  so 
as  to  yield  his  own  opinion  to  him,  if  he  will.  But  who 
shall  judge  of  it  for  a  whole  assembly  ?  Who  shall  allot 
among  a  great  many  individuals,  their  comparative  weight? 
If  any  body,  it  must  be  the  clerk.  The  result  is,  that  the 
government  if  not  a  democracy,  very  much  resembles  a 
monarchy.  Neither  party  would  be  willing  to  call  it  the 
latter,  unless  by  supposing  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church 
to  preside,  and  rule  therein.  And  this  is,  no  doubt,  the 
theoretic  principle  on  this  point.  But  who  is  to  declare  his 
decision  ?  We  come  back  again  to  the  clerk.  Will  he  al- 
ways declare  them  truly  ?  To  err,  is  human.  He  may  be 
directed  by  light  from  above,  or  he  may  follow,  his  own 
will.  And  this  contest,  shows  that  neither  party  had  any 
confidence  in  the  infallibility  of  the  clerk,  under  the  unu- 
sual and  trying  circumstances  which  existed.  The  persons 
nominated  by  the  two  parties,  were  respectable  men,  of 
great  worth  and  experience.  They  had  both,  for  a  long 
time,  served  the  society  very  satisfactorily,  in  the  most  re- 
sponsible stations, — those  of  clerk,  and  assistant  clerk. 
But  both  had,  or  were  suspected  to  have,  partialities,  or 
wishes  of  their  own,  to  be  gratified  by  the  decisions  of 
the  yearly  meeting.  And  the  consequence  was,  that  they 
were  both  objects  of  the  greatest  distrust.  The  "  Ortho- 
dox" did  not  believe  that  John  Comly  could  serve  the 
meeting  faithfully,  and  the  "  Hicksites"  were  equally  dubi- 
ous of  the  infallibility  of  Samuel  Bettle. 

This  feature  in  the  government  of  this  society,  whatever 
may  be  its  precise  limits,  is  ii^imately  connected  with 
their  religious  principles  and  doctrines,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  64.) 
They  believe  that  the  Head  of  the  Church,  when  properly 
invoked,  will  shed  his  influence  upon  their  meetings,  and 
be  "a  spirit  of  judgment,  to  those  who  sit  in  judgment." 
Hence,  the  clerk  is  suffered  to  gather  the  feeling  and  sense 
of  a  meeting,  from  those  who  have  long  manifested  a  spi- 
ritual walk  and  conversation,  aided  by  the  agency  of  the 
spirit  of  truth,  in  his  own  mind.    But,  it  is  at  least  possible, 


72 

thit  a  meeting  should  be  unfitted,  in  a  measure,  for  this 
intercourse  with  the  spirit ;  and  that  the  clerk  may  be  in- 
fluenced by  earthly  passions,  and  have  a  will  of  his  own 
to  subserve,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church.  Should  such  a  case  arise,  it  must  be  perceived 
that  the  beauty  of  this  theory  is  marred,  and  the  govern- 
ment becomes,  not  what  it  was  intended  to  he.  May  it  not 
be  said,  that  in  such  case,  the  condition  on  which  the  power 
of  the  clerk  and  the  minority  is  founded,  is  broken  1  But  if 
it  be,  who  is  to  declare  whether  such  a  case  has,  or  has 
not,  arisen?  Or,  what  is  to  be  the  effect  of  an  abuse  of 
this  power  1  Or,  how  is  it  to  be  relieved  against  1  I  find 
myself  met  by  these  questions,  and  others,  connected  with 
this  important  and  delicate  subject.  And  supposing  that 
the  decision  of  this  cause  does  not  require  an  investigation 
of  them,  I  shall  not  attempt  it.  Hence,  I  wish  not  to  be 
understood  as  intimating  any  opinion,  as  to  the  complaints 
of  the  "  Hicksite"  party  ;  whether  there  were  really  any 
good  grounds  for  them,  or  not;  or,  whether,  if  there  were, 
it  would  justify  the  course  they  took,  or  save  them  from 
the  legal  consequences  of  a  secession.  I  would  only  ob- 
serve, further,  on  this  branch  of  the  subject,  that  were  this 
a  mere  7iaked  trust,  to  be  performed  immediately,  by  the 
yearly  meeting,  I  think  I  should  have  no  hesitation  to 
award  it  to  the  Arch  street  meeting;  that  being,  in  point 
of  form,  at  least,  the  same  meeting  which  was  in  existence 
at  the  time  the  trust  was  created.  But  the  Chesterfield 
preparative  meeting,  with  respect  to  this  fund,  may  fairly 
be  considered,  not  merely  as  a  trustee,  but  as  having  a 
beneficiary  interest,  inasmuch  as  the  fund  is  to  be  expend- 
ed in  the  education  of  the  children  of  such  of  its  members 
as  are  poor.  It  is  a  subordinate  meeting,  the  pretensions 
of  which  are  to  be  settled,  by  its  acknowledging  one  or  the 
other  of  these  yearly  meetings  as  its  head.  There  was 
some  difficulty  in  selecting  which  it  should  acknowledge; 
and  if  the  majority  have  mistaken  the  truth,  and  connect- 
ed themselves  with  the  wrong  head,  (supposing  this  to  be 
a  mere  dispute  as  to  government,  or  discipline)  I  should 
feel  very  reluctant  to  conclude  that  they  could  have  no 
further  right  or  interest  in  the  fund.  But  as  I  before  in- 
timated, I  mean  not  to  form,  or  express  an  opinion  on  this 
subject ;  for,  in  surveying  the  pleadings  and  testimony  in 
this  cause,  the  conviction  urges  itself  strongly  upon  my 
mind,  that  there  is  another  great  distinction  between  these 


73 

parties,  which  may  be  resorted  to,  to  ascertain  which  iS 
the  true  society  of  Friends,  so  far  as  the  purposes  of  this 
case  require  the  decision  of  that  question.  I  mean  the 
difference  in  doctrine. 

Hendrickson,  in  his  answer  to  the  bill  of  interpleader, 
ailedges  that  "  the  society  of  Friends,  as  a  christian  sect, 
hold  doctrines  in  reference  to  Christianity,  which,  like 
those  of  other  sects,  are  in  some  measure,  common  to  all 
christians,  and  in  other  respects,  peculiar  to  themselves." 
And  that  "  the  following  religious  doctrines  have  always 
been  held  and  maintained  by  them."     (Vol.  1.  Evid.  30.) 

"  In  the  first  place,  although  the  society  of  Friends  have 
seldom  made  use  of  the  word  trinity,  yet  they  believe  in 
the  existence  of  the  Father,  Son,  or  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  That  the  Son  was  God,  and  became  flesh, — that 
there  is  one  God  and  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things — that 
there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  all  things  were 
made,  who  was  glorified  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
began,  who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever — that  there  is 
one  Holy  Spirit,  the  promise  of  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
the  leader,  and  sanctifier,  and  comforter  of  his  people, 
and  that  these  -three  are  one,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Spirit.  That  the  principal  difference  between  the 
people  called  Quakers,  and  other  protestant  trinitarian  sects, 
in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  is,  the  latter  attach 
the  idea  of  individual  personage  to  the  three,  as  what  they 
consider  a  fair  logical  inference  from  the  doctrines  ex- 
pressly laid  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  people 
called  Quakers,  on  the  other  hand,  consider  it  a  mystery 
beyond  finite,  human  conception ;  take  up  the  doctrine  as 
expressly  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  have  not  con- 
sidered themselves  warranted  in  making  deductions,  how- 
ever specious. 

"  In  the  second  place,  the  people  called  Quakers,  have 
always  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  that  the 
divine  and  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  were  united ; 
that  thus  united,  he  suffered,  and  that  through  his  suffer- 
ings, death,  and  resurrection,  he  atoned  for  the  sins  of 
men.  That  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  fullness  of  time  took 
flesh;  became  perfect  man,  according  to  the  flesh,  descend- 
ed and  came  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David ;  that 
being  with  God  from  all  eternity,  being  himself  God,  and 
also  in  time  partaking  of  the  nature  of  man,  through  him 
is  the  goodness  and  love  of  God  conveyed  to  mankind, 
22 


74 

and  that  by  him  again  man  receiveth  and  partaketh  of 
these  mercies ;  that  Christ  took  upon  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  liis  holy  body  and  blood  was  an  offering  and  a 
sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 

"  In  the  third  place,  the  people  called  Quakers,  believe 
that  the  Scriptures  are  given  by  inspiration,  and  when 
rightly  interpreted  are  unerring  guides;  and  to  use  the 
language  adopted  by  them,  they  are  able  to  make  wise 
unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ. 
They  believe  thai  the  spirit  still  operates  upon  the  souls 
of  men,  and  when  it  does  really  and  truly  so  operate,  it 
furnishes  the  primary  rule  of  faith.  That  the  Scriptures 
proceeding  from  it,  must  be  secondary  in  reference  to  this 
primary  source,  whence  they  proceed  ;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  dictates  of  the  spirit  are  always  true  and  uniform,  all 
ideas  and  views  which  any  person  may  entertain  repug- 
nant to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  which  are  unerr- 
ing, must  proceed  from  false  lights.  That  such  are  the 
doctrines  entertained  and  adopted  by  the  ancient  society 
of  Friends,  and  that  the  same  doctrines  are  still  entertain- 
ed by  the  *  Orthodox'  party  aforesaid,  to  w  hich  party  this 
defendant  belongs.  That  these  doctrines  are,  with  the  said 
religious  society,  fundamental ;  and  any  individual  enter- 
taining sentiments  and  opinions  contrary  to  all,  or  any  of 
the  above  mentioned  doctrines,  is  held  not  to  be  in  the 
same  faith  with  the  society  of  Friends,  or  the  people  call- 
ed Quakers,  and  is  treated  accordingly."  And  he  further 
alleges,  that  previous  to  the  separation,  the  society  be- 
came divided  into  two  parties,  one  of  which  is  called  the 
"  Orthodox,"  and  the  other,  the  "Hicksite,"  and  that  "  they 
differ  essentially  from  each  other,  in  religious  doctrines  ;" 
and  especially  with  respect  to  the  doctrines  above  stated. 
That  the  'Orthodox'  party  hold  to  them,  but  that  the 
*  Hicksite'  party  do  not  adopt  and  beheve  in  them,  but  en- 
tertain opinions  entirely  and  absolutely  repugnant  and 
contrary  thereto." 

Decow,  in  his  answer  alleges,  that  "the  society  of 
Friends  acknowledge  no  head  but  Christ,  and  no  principle 
of  authority  or  government  in  the  church  but  the  love  and 
power  of  God  operating  upon  the  heart,  and  thence  influ- 
encing the  judgment,  and  producing  a  unity  of  feeling, 
brotherly  sympathy  and  condescension  to  each  other.  The 
great  fundamental  principle  of  the  society;  the  divine  light 
and  power  operating  on  the  soul ;  being  acknowledged  by 


75 

all  its  members  as  the  effective  bond  of  union ;  the  right 
of  each  individual  to  judge  of  the  true  meaning  of  Scrip- 
ture testimony,  relating  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  evidence  in  his  own  mind,  uncontrolled 
by  the  arbitrary  dictation  of  his  equally  fallible  fellow  man, 
hath  been  as  well  tacitly  as  explicitly,  acknowledged  by 
the  society."  (vol.  1.  Evid.  43,  45,  51.)  And  that  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  system  of  discipline,  adopted  by  the 
society,  "  relate  partly  to  the  preservation  of  a  decent  and 
comely  order  in  its  internal  polity ;  partly  to  the  observance 
of  the  principles  of  morality  and  justice,  by  all  belonging 
to  it ;  and  partly  to  the  maintenance  of  its  peculiar  testi- 
monies." 

He  further  alleges,  that  "  the  Chesterfield  preparative 
meeting  of  Friends,  at  Crosswicks,  to  which  he  belongs, 
is  the  same  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting  of  Friends, 
at  Crosswicks,  under  whose  care  the  said  school  fund  was 
placed  by  the  contributors  thereto,  and  are  identified  with 
them  in  due  and  regular  succession,  and  are  a  part  of  the 
ancient  society  of  Friends.     That  they  believe  in  the  chris- 
tian religion,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as 
professed  by  ancient  Friends,  and  adhere  to  the  religious 
institutions  and  government  of  the  society  of  Friends ; 
and  bear  the  same  cardinal  testimonies  to  the  whole  world, 
as  are  held  most  important  and  characteristic  in  the  said 
society ;  among  which,  are  a  testimony  against  war,  a 
hireling  ministry,  against  taking  oaths,  against  going  to 
law  with  brethren,  and  a  concern  to  observe  the  golden 
rule,  do  unto  all  men  as  we  would  they  should  do  unto  us." 
It  is  perceived,  that  each  party  claims  for  the  meeting 
which  appointed  him,  an  adherence  to  the  ancient  faith  of 
Friends ;  although  they  differ  in  this,  that  one  points  out 
certain  doctrines,  which  he  considers  as  parts  of  that  faith, 
and  that  they  are  essential  parts;  while  the  other,  without 
directly  denying  these   to  be  the  doctrines  of  Friends,  or 
that   his   party  in  the  society  hold  doctrines  repugnant 
thereto,  contents  himself  with  alleging  that  "  they  believe 
in  the  christian  religion,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  as  professed  by  ancient  Friends:"  and  their  ad- 
herence to  their  peculiar  testimonies,  some  of  which  are 
specified ;  and  distinctly  advances  "  the  right  of  each  in- 
dividual to  judge  of  the  true  meaning  of  Scripture  testi- 
mony, relating  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  according  to 
the  best  evidence  in  his  own  ntiind."    And  by  enumerating 


76 

other  objects  of  discipline,  he  would  give  us  to  understand 
that  this  is  a  right,  the  exercise  of  which  is  beyond  the 
control  of  the  discipline  of  the  society. 

There  is  nothing  characteristic  in  "  a  belief  in  the  chris- 
tian religion,  as  contained  in  the  New  Testament."  All 
sects  of  christians,  however  widel}'-  separated,  unite  in 
professing  this.  But  if  I  can  understand  the  liberty  claimed 
in  this  answer  for  the  members  of  the  society,  it  is,  that 
they  may  interpret  the  Scriptures,  in  reference  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  trinity,  and  of  the  divinity  and  atonement  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  the  light  within  them  shall  direct. 

But  although  Decow,  in  his  answer,  has,  in  some  mea- 
sure, declared  the  faith  of  the  party  to  which  he  belongs, 
yet  he  denies  that  this,  or  any  other  court  has  a  right  to 
institute  an  inquest  into  the  consciences  or  faith  of  mem- 
bers of  religious  associations.  But  can  this  denial  be  well 
founded  ?  May  this  fund  be  divided,  and  subdivided,  as 
often  as  this  body  shall  separate?  And  parts  of  it,  from 
time  to  time,  be  diverted  from  its  declared  purpose,  and 
appropriated  to  the  education  of  the  children  of  persons 
connected  with  other  religious  persuasions,  or  of  no  reli- 
gion at  all?  And  yet  that  no  court  can  control  it?  Surely, 
this  cannot  be.  This  trust  can  be  exercised  only  by  a 
meeting  of  the  religious  society  of  Friends.  The  fund  can 
be  used  only  in  the  education  of  the  children  belonging  to 
a  meeting  of  that  society.  And  when,  as  on  this  occa- 
sion, two  distinct  bodies,  which  have  separated  on  points 
of  discipline,  or  doctrine,  or  both,  come  before  the  court, 
and  each  claim  the  guardianship  and  use  of  this  fund,  as 
belonging  to  the  society  of  Friends;  this  court  may,  sure- 
ly, inquire  into  the  badges  of  distinction,  by  which  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  are  known ;  and  if  they  are  characterized 
by  established  doctrines,  we  may  inquire  what  those  are, 
and  whether  they  belong  to  one,  or  both  of  these  parties. 
This  power  is  distinctly  laid  down,  in  a  recent  case  before 
the  House  of  Lords,  in  which.  Lord  Chancellor  Eldon 
says,  "  It  is  true,  the  court  cannot  take  notice  of  religious 
opinions,  with  a  view  to  decide  whether  they  are  right  or 
wrong,  but  it  may  notice  them  as  facts,  pointing  out  the 
ownership  of  property.* 

In  searching  for  the  doctrines  of  this  society,  it  is,  in  my 
opinion,  not  necessary  to  inquire  whether  there  were  any 

*  1  Dow's  Rep.  1.  2  Jacob  and  Walk.  248.  3  Merrivale,  412,  419.  7 
Serg.  and  Rawie,  460.  3  Pegs^iisgmre,  ^57, 


77 

differences  of  opinion  among  their  ancient  writers,  provi- 
ded the  society  had  for  a  long  time  before  this  fund  was 
estabhshed,  promulgated  as  a  body,  their  religious  doc- 
trines, and  had  settled  down  in  harmony  under  them.  It 
is  a  body  of  Friends,  with  its  settled  and  known  charac- 
teristics, at  that  time,  which  is  contemplated  in  the  trust. 

The  society  of  Friends,  or  Quakers,  as  they  were  called 
by  their  opponents,  had  its  origin  in  England,  about  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century ;  a  time  much  distin- 
guished for  religious  inquiry,  in  many  parts  of  Europe.  It 
was  composed  of  persons  who  could  not  conscientiously 
agree  with  the  existing  sects,  in  their  doctrines,  modes  of 
worship,  or  practices,  and  who  found  themselves  drawn 
together  by  a  unity  of  faith  and  feeling.  They  called  them- 
selves christians  and  protestants,  but  appear  to  have  re- 
quired from  those  seeking  to  become  united  with  them,  no 
formal  profession  of  faith,  as  a  test  of  principle  to  qualify 
them  for  admission ;  looking  at  their  works  as  evidence  of 
their  christian  faith,  and  their  practice,  and  support  of 
their  peculiar  testimonies,  as  evidence  of  their  Quakerism. 
As  they  increased  in  numbers,  and  attracted  the  attention 
of  the  civil  authorities,  their  principles  became  the  subject 
of  inquiry,  and  of  misrepresentation,  by  reason  of  which, 
they  were  exposed  to  reproach  and  persecution,  and  it  be- 
came necessary  for  them  to  come  out  and  avow  their 
leading  doctrines  to  the  world.  This  was  done  by  their 
leaders  and  principal  men,  professing  to  act  in  behalf  of 
the  society  on  several  occasions.  George  Fox,  who  is 
generally  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  sect,  travelling  in 
the  island  of  Barbadoes,  being  assailed  with  these  misre- 
presentations, and  especially  with  this,  that  they  denied 
God,  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  Scriptures  of  truth;  "with 
some  other  Friends,  drew  up  a  paper  to  go  forth  in  the 
name  of  the  people  called  Quakers,  for  the  clearing  of 
truth  and  Friends  from  those  false  reports."  It  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  governor  of  Barbadoes,  with  his  council 
and  assembly.  In  this  paper,  the  belief  of  Friends  in  God, 
the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures,  is  most  fully  and  explicitly  avowed, 
(vol.  2.  Fox's  Jour.  145,  138,  316,  338,  307.  vol.  1.  lb.  4, 
56,  57.)  Elias  Hicks  intimates  that  George  Fox,  for  pru- 
dential reasons,  disguised  his  real  sentiments,  (vol.  1.  Evid. 
116.  vol.  2.  lb.  417.)  But  this  ill  agrees  with  the  history  of 
Fox,  and  I  suspect  with  the  belief  of  Friends,  as  to  his  real 
2%* 


78 

character.  Sewell  has  given  his  character  in  this  respect, 
as  drawn  by  a  contemporary,  in  these  words :  "  He  was 
indeed,  a  heavenly  minded  man,  zealous  for  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  and  preferred  the  honour  of  God  before  all 
things.  He  was  valiant  for  the  truth,  bold  in  asserting  it, 
patient  in  suffering  for  it,  unwearied  in  labouring  in  it, 
steady  in  his  testimony  to  it,  immoveable  as  a  rock."  (vol. 
2.  SewelVs  Hist.  464.) 

In  1689,  the  British  parliament  passed  an  act  for  ex- 
empting protestant  dissenters  from  certain  penalties,  by 
which  the  Quakers  had  suffered  for  many  years.  To  ob- 
tain the  benefit  of  this  exemption,  they  subscribed,  among 
other  articles,  the  following:  "  I,  A.  B.  profess  faith  in 
in  God,  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  eternal  son,  the 
true  God,  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  one  God,  blessed  for- 
evermore ;  and  do  acknowledge  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  be  by  divine  inspiration." 
The  historian  adds,  "  we  now  see  the  religion  of  the 
Quakers  acknowledged  and  tolerated  by  an  act  of  parlia- 
ment." (vol.  2.  Sewell,  447.) 

In  1693,  the  doctrines  of  the  society  being  misrepresent- 
ed by  George  Keith  and  others,  "  they  found  themselves 
obliged  to  put  forth  their  faith  anew  in  print,  which  they 
had  often  before  asserted,  both  in  words  and  writing, 
thereby  to  manifest  that  their  belief  was  really  orthodox, 
and  agreeable  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  (vol.  2.  Se-icell, 
471,)  And  being  charged  with  some  socinian  notions, 
a  short  confession  of  faith,  signed  by  one  and  thirty  per- 
sons, of  which  George  Whitehead  was  one,  was,  in  De- 
cember following,  presented  to  the  parliament.  (2  Sewell^ 
483,  499.  vol.  1.  Evid.  297.  3  Gough's  Hist  386.)  In  these 
public  declarations,  we  find  these  enumerated  doctrines 
recognized  and  avowed.  At  that  time,  and  afterwards, 
the  society  of  Friends  in  this  country,  acknowledged  the 
London  yearly  meeting  as  their  head,  and  appeals  were 
taken  from  their  meetings  in  this  country,  and  decided 
there,  (vol.  1.  Evid.  95.  1  Proud's  Hist.  Penn.  369.) 

Of  their  early  writers, none  seems  to  have  been  held  in 
higher  estimation  than  Robert  Barclay.  In  his  "  Apolo- 
gy"* purporting  to  be  an  explanation  and  vindication  of 
the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  people  called  Quakers — 

*  See  ninth  edition,  published  at  Philadelphia,  in  1775,  pages  86,  139, 
141,  185,  203,  204,  211,  226,  572,  573,  574.  Also  in  his  "Anarchy  of 
th9  Ranters,"  pages,  1,  2,  3,  29,  30. 


7D 

these  principles  are  distinctly  exhibited  as  parts  of  their 
faith. 

He  also  published  a  catechism  and  confession  of  faith, 
which  purport  to  contain  "  a  true  and  faithful  account  of 
the  principles  and  doctrines,  which  are  most  surely  be- 
lieved by  the  churches  of  Christ,  in  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land, who  are  reproachfully  called  by  the  name  of  Qua- 
kers." In  these,  the  doctrines  above  mentioned,  are  most 
fully  and  explicitly  taught  and  professed.f 

It  is  in  evidence,  that  Barclay's  Apology,  and  his  Cate- 
chism, and  Confession  of  Faith,  purporting  as  aforesaid, 
have  been  published  and  circulated  by  the  Philadelphia 
yearly  meeting,  by  the  use  of  its  own  funds,  and  as  their 
minutes  express,  "  for  the  service  of  truth,"  as  early  as  the 
year  1701,  and  on  several  occasions  since,  (vol.  I.  £vid. 
76,  297.) 

There  is  much  other  evidence  laid  before  us,  by  docu- 
ments and  witnesses,  confirming  that  which  I  have  thus 
briefly  noticed.  But  I  shall  pass  it  over,  merely  referring 
however,  to  the  letters  from  Ellas  Hicks  to  Phebe  WilHs 
and  Thomas  Willis,  written  in  1818,  in  which  he  distinctly 
intimates  that  the  society's  belief  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  he  had  been  taught  from  his 
cradle,  whatever  was  his  belief  at  that  time,  was  fully  in 
accordance  with  the  pretensions  of  the  "Orthodox"  party, 
(vol.  2.  Evid.  419,  420,  421.) 

I  think  it  sufficiently  established,  that  these  doctrines 
have  been  avowedly  and  generally  held  by  the  society. 
And,  indeed,  they  have  treated  the  Scriptures  with  a  de- 
gree of  reverence,  uncommon,  even  among  christians. 
Feeling  it  presumptuous  to  speculate  upon  what  is  obscure, 
they  have,  in  doctrinal  matters,  adopted  its  explicit  language, 
but  rejected  the  ingenious  deductions  of  men;  they  have 
been  unwilling  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written.  And  in 
matters  oi practice,  they  have  endeavoured  to  apply  its  pre- 
cepts literally;  and  this  is  the  foundation  of  their  peculiar 
testimonies. 

But  are  these  doctrines  essential?  There  is  strong  evi- 
dence of  this,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  doctrines  them- 
selves. When  men  form  themselves  into  associations  for 
the  worship  of  God,  some  correspondence  of  views,  as  to 
the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  being  who  is  the  object  of 
worship,  is  necessary.     The  difference  between  the  pagan, 

t  See  pages  2,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13, 104,  106,  107,  108,  111,  134. 


80 

the  mahometan,  the  christian,  and  the  jew,  is  radical,  and 
irreconcileable.  The  two  latter  worship  the  same  God  ; 
but  one  approaches  him  through  a  mediator,  whom  the 
other  regards  as  an  impostor ;  and  hence,  there  can  be  no 
communion  or  fellowship  between  them.  Christians  have 
become  separated  into  various  sects,  difTering  more  or  less 
in  their  doctrines.  In  looking  at  the  history  of  these  sects, 
I  am  by  no  means  convinced  that  there  was,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  any  necessity  for  all  the  divisions  which  have 
taken  place.  Many  of  the  controversies  in  the  church, 
have  doubtless  arisen  from  minute  and  subtile  distinctions 
in  doctrine,  which  have  been  maintained,  not  only  with 
much  ingenuity,  but  with  much  obstinacy  and  pride;  and 
which,  by  this  mixture  of  human  frailty,  have  been  the 
cause  of  angr}^,  and  often  bloody  dissensions.  And  when- 
ever the  civil  government,  or  the  prevailing  party,  in  a  re- 
ligious society,  have  formed  creeds,  and  required  profes- 
sions of  faiih,  descending  to  these  minute  points,  it  has, 
necessarily,  caused  the  separation  of  those,  or  at  least  the 
honest  part  of  them,  who  could  not  believe  up  to  the  pre- 
cise hne  of  orthodoxy.  Hence,  no  doubt,  many  separa- 
tions have  taken  place  in  churches,  upon  points  of  doctrine, 
which  would  never  have  disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  as- 
sociation, had  not  public  professions  of  faith  been  required, 
descending  into  minute  and  non-essential  particulars.  In 
these  days  many  christians  find  themselves  able  to  unite  in 
worship  with  those  of  different  denominations,  and  to  for- 
get the  line  of  separation  between  them.  But,  although 
unnecessary  divisions  have  taken  place,  it  by  no  means 
follows,  that  there  are  not  some  points  of  faith,  which  must 
be  agreed  in,  in  order  that  a  religious  society  may  har- 
monize in  their  public  worship  and  private  intercourse,  so 
as  to  experience  the  benefits  of  associating  together.  Of 
this  description,  is  the  belief  in  the  atonement  and  divine 
nature  of  Jesus  Christ.  He,  who  considers  Him  to  be  di- 
vine; who  addresses  himself  to  Him,  as  the  Mediator,  the 
Way,  the  Creator,  and  Redeemer;  who  has  power  to  hear, 
and  to  answer;  to  make  and  to  perform  his  promises,  can- 
not worship  with  him,  who  regards  Him  as  destitute  of 
this  nature,  and  these  divine  attributes.  Nor  can  the  latter 
unite  in  a  worship  which  he  conceives  to  be  idolatrous. 

And  with  respect  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  belief  in  the  divine  nature  and  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  indeed,  of  the  christian  religion  itself,  is  inti-> 


81 

mately  connected  with  that  of  the  divine  authority  of  the 
sacred  writings.  "  Great  are  the  mysteries  of  Godliness." 
And  of  all  the  truths  declared  in  Holy  Writ,  none  are 
more  mysterious  than  the  nature,  history,  and  offices  of 
Jesus  Christ.  The  mind  that  contemplates  these  truths  as 
based  on  mere  human  testimony,  must  range  in  doubt  and 
perplexity,  or  take  refuge  in  infidelity.  But  if  they  are  re- 
garded as  the  truth  of  God,  the  pride  of  human  reason  is 
humbled  before  them.  It  afterwards  exerts  its  powers  to 
understand,  and  to  apply,  but  not  to  overthrow  them. 
Faith  may  repose  in  confidence  upon  them,  and  produce 
its  fruits  in  a  holy  life.  To  a  people  Hke  the  Friends,  w^ho 
pay  so  much  attention  to  the  light  within,  but  who  at  the 
same  time,  acknowledge  the  deceitfulness  of  the  human 
heart,  and  the  imperfection  of  human  reason ;  when  they 
once  fix  their  belief  on  the  testimonies  of  Scripture,  as  dic- 
tated by  the  spirit  of  truth,  they  necessarily  become  pre- 
cious ;  as  the  landmarks,  setting  bounds  to  principle  and 
to  action  ;  as  the  charts,  by  which  they  may  navigate  the 
ocean  of  life  in  safety ;  as  the.  tests,  by  which  they  may 
examine  themselves,  their  principles,  and  feelings,  and 
learn  what  spirit  they  are  of.  For,  in  the  language  of  Bar- 
clay, "  they  are  certain,  that  whatsoever  any  do,  pretend- 
ing to  the  spirit,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  should 
be  accounted  and  reckoned  a  delusion  of  the  devil."  Hence, 
their  book  of  discipline  earnestly  exorts  all  parents  and 
heads  of  families,  to  cause  the  diligent  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  by  their  children  ;  (Disc.  100.)  to  instruct  them 
in  the  doctrines  and  precepts  there  taught,  as  well  as  in  the 
belief  of  the  inward  manifestation  and  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  their  own  minds;  and  to  prevent  their 
children  reading  books  or  papers,  tending  to  create  the 
least  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or 
of  those  saving  truths  declared  in  them.  "(Disc.  12.)  And 
hence,  by  the  same  discipline,  ministers  are  liable  to  be 
dealt  with,  who  shall  misapply,  or  draw  unsound  inferences 
or  conclusions  from  the  text.  (lb.  62.)  And  a  periodical 
inquiry  is  directed  to  be  made  whether  their  ministers  are 
sound  in  word  and  doctrine,  (lb.  95.) 

I  have  before  said,  that  their  great  regard  for  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  desire  to  comply  with  them  literally,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  their  peculiar  testimonies.  These  are  acknow- 
ledged by  Decovi^  and  his  party,  to  be  essential,  and  a  de- 
parture from  them,  a  ground  of  disownment.  (vol.  1.  Evid. 


82 

43,  385.)  Does  not  a  strong  argument  result  from  this, 
that  they  regard  the  Scriptures  as  divine  truth,  and  that 
this  belief  is  essential  1  When  their  writers  would  defend 
these  testimonies,  they  do  not  refer  us  to  the  light  within. 
They  do  not  say  that  this  has  taught  them  that  oaths  are 
unlawful,  «fec.     But  they  point  to  passages  of  Scripture,  as 
authority,  and  undoubted  authority,  on  these  subjects.   But 
why  are   they  authority?  Because  they  are  the  truth  of 
man?  No.  Friends  spurn  at  the  dictation  of  their  equally 
fallible  fellow  man.     But  because  they  are  the  truth  of 
God.     Or,  in  the  language  of  Fox,    "  We  call  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  holy  men  of  God 
called  them,  the  words  of  God."  (vol.  2.  Fox's  Jour.  147. 
vol.    1.   Evid.  78.)    Can   it  be  that  the  rejection  of,  or 
nonconformity  to,  particular  passages,  is  ground  of  dis- 
ownment,  and  yet  that  their  members  are  at  liberty  to  re- 
ject the  whole  ?  What  would  this  be  but  to  permit  their 
fellow  man  to  select  and  garble  as  they  please,  and  dic- 
tate what  should  be  believed,  and  what  might  be  disbelieved? 
These  testimonies  regard  the  practices  of  the  members. 
Robert  Barclay  did  not  consider  deviations  from  them,  as 
the  sole  causes  of  disownment.     He  says,  "  we  being  gath- 
ered together  into  the  belief  of  certain  principles  and  doc- 
trines ;  those  principles  and  doctrines,  and  the  practices 
necessarily  depending  upon  them,  are,  as  it  were,  the  terms 
that  have  drawn  us  together,  and  the  bond  by  which  we 
become  centered  into  one  body  and  fellowship,  and  dis- 
tinguished from  others.     Now,  if  any  one,  or  n.ore,  so  en- 
gaged with  us,  should  arise  to  teach  any  other  doctrine  or 
doctrines,  contrary  to  these  which  were  the  ground  of  our 
being  one,  who  can  deny,  but  the  body  hath  power,  in  such 
a  case,  to  declare  this  is  not  according  to  the  truth  which 
we  profess ;  and  therefore  we  pronounce  such  and  such 
doctrines  to  be  wrong,  with  which  we  cannot  have  unity, 
nor  yet  any  more  spiritual  fellowship  with  those  that  hold 
them?  And  so  cut  themselves  off  from  being  members,  by 
dissolving  the  very  bond  by  which  they  were  linked  to  the 
body."*     And  after  proving  the  soundness  of  these  views 
from  Scripture  and  reason,  he  concludes  as  follows :  "  So 
that  from  all  that  is  above  mentioned,  we  do  safely  con- 
clude, that  where  a  people  are  gathered  together  into  the 
belief  of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
if  any  of  that  people  shall  go  from  those  principles,  and 
*  Anarchy  of  the  Ranters,  pages  54,  55,  56,  57,  58,  59. 


83 

assert  things  false  and  contrary  to  what  they  have  ah'eady 
received ;  such  as  stand  and  abide  firm  in  the  faith,  have 
power  by  the  spirit  of  God,  after  they  have  used  christian 
endeavours  to  convince  and  reclaim  them,  upon  their  ob- 
stinacy, to  separate  such,  and  to  exclude  them  from  their 
spiritual  fellowship  and  communion.  For  otherwise,  if 
these  be  denied,  farewell  to  all  Christianity,  or  to  the  main- 
taining of  any  sound  doctrine  in  the  church  of  Christ." 
And,  surely,  these  remarks  must  be  applicable  to  doctrines 
as  radical  as  those  above  stated. 

In  1722,  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  issued  a  tes- 
timony, accompanying  Barclay's  Catechism  and  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  which  they  styled  "  The  ancient  testimony 
of  the  people  called  Quakers,  revived."     In  which,  after  a 
long  enumeration  of  evil  practices  which  the  apostles  tes- 
tified against,  and  through  which  some  fell  away,  they  add, 
"  and  some  others,  who  were  then  gathered  into  the  belief 
of  the  principles  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  fell 
from  those  priticiples,  as  some  have  done  in  our  day;  in 
which  cases,  such  as  stood  firm  in  the  faith,  had  power  by 
the  spirit  of  God,  after  christian  endeavours  to  convince 
and  reclaim  these  backsliders,  to  exclude  them  from  our 
spiritual  fellowship  and  communion,  as  also  the  privileges 
they  had  as  fellow-members ;  which  power  we  know  by 
good  experience,  continues  with  us,  in  carrying  on  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  church  in  the  spirit  of  meekness."  (vol.  2. 
Evid.  11.)     And  in  answer  to  what  was  said  in  argument, 
as  to  the  extent  of  the  discipline  appearing  in  its  introduc- 
tory paragraph,  I  would  observe  that  this  testimony  was 
issued  soon  after  that  introduction  commences,  by  refer- 
ring to  it,  and  may  be  considered  as  in  a  manner  explana- 
tory of  it.     But  the  discipline  itself  is  not  silent  on  this 
subject.     Its  object  is  declared  to  be,  "  that  all  may  be 
preserved  in  unity  of  faith  and  practice."     Now,  what  is 
unity  of  faith?     Does  it  not  recfuire  unity  of  interpretation ; 
unity  of  views,  of  the  meaning  of  texts  of  Scripture,  in- 
volving important  doctrines?     It  does  not  require  submis- 
sion to  the  dictation  of  others.     But  it  does  require  an  ac- 
commodation of  opinion  to  a  common  standard,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  of  one  faith.     This  need  not  extend  to 
subordinate  matters;  but  liberal  as  the  society  has  always 
been  in  this  respect,  it  has  spread  before  its  members  the 
Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith  and  Apology  of  Bar- 
clay, as  guides  to  opinion,  and  it  will  not  suffer  even  the 


84 

less  essetiticd  doctrines  there  promulgated,  to  be  questioned, 
if  it  be  done  in  a  contentious  or  obstinate  spirit,  without 
subjecting  the  offender  to  disciphne.  This  is  plainly  indi- 
cated in  the  testimony  above  referred  to.  (Disc.  12.)  And 
with  respect  to  the  more  important  doctrines  now  in  dis- 
pute, the  discipline  expressly  says,  *'  Should  any  deny  the 
divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate 
revelation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures;  and  it  is  manifest  they  are  not  one  in  faith  with  us, 
the  monthly  meeting  where  the  party  belongs,  having  ex- 
tended due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit  of  the  individual 
without  effect,  ought  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue  their 
testimony  accordingly."  (Disc.  23.  vol.  1.  Evid.  385.) 

In  addition  to  all  this,  several  respectable  witnesses  tes- 
tify that  the  denial  of  these  doctrines  has  always  been  held 
to  be  ground  of  disownment,  and  they  adduce  many  in- 
stances of  actual  disownment  for  these  causes,  (vol.  1. 
Evid.  60.  99.  108.  171.  306.) 

Upon  reviewing  the  testimony,  I  am  satisfied  that  the 
society  of  Friends  regard  these  doctrines  as  essential,  and 
that  they  have  the  power,  by  their  discipline,  to  disown 
those  who  openly  call  them  in  question. 

But  do  the  Arch  street  meeting,  and  its  subordinate 
meetings,  hold  to  these  doctrines'?  It  is  so  alleged;  and  it 
is  not  denied.  The  denial,  if  it  be  one  at  all,  is  that  these 
are  established  doctrines  of  the  society  of  Friends.  The 
controversies  between  the  parties,  so  far  as  they  were  doc- 
trinal, show  that  the  party  called  "  Orthodox,"  insisted  on 
these  doctrines.  The  oflensive  extracts  of  the  meeting  for 
sufferings,  declares  them.  (vol.  1.  Evid.  217.  vol.  2.  lb.  414.) 
And  these  have  been  published  by  the  yearly  meeting  of 
that  party,  in  1828.  And  there  is  much  testimony  by  wit- 
nesses, that  the  Arch  street  meeting  adheres  to  them.  (vol. 
1.  Evid.  60,  99.)  and  none  to  the  contrary. 

So  that  it  appears  to  me,  that  Hendrickson  has  suffi- 
ciently established  that  the  preparative  meeting  at  Chester- 
field, which  he  represents,  may,  so  far  as  respects  doctrine, 
justly  claim  to  be  of  the  society  of  Friends. 

But  it  is  insisted,  that  the  other  party  stands  on  equal 
ground  in  this  respect ;  that  they  are  now,  or  certainly 
have  been,  in  unity  with  that  society;  a  society  in  which 
no  public  declaration  of  faith  is  necessary ;  and  that  hence, 
independent  of  any  proof  they  may  have  offered,  they  are 
to  be  presumed  to  be  sound  in  the  faith.    And  that  any 


85 

inquiry  into  their  doctrines,  further  than  as  they  have  pub- 
licly declared  them,  is  inquisitorial,  and  an  invasion  of 
their  rights  of  conscience. 

If  a  fact  be  necessary  to  be  ascertained  by  this  court, 
for  the  purpose  of  settling  a  question  of  property,  it  is  its 
duty  to  ascertain  it.  And  this  must  be  done  by  such  evi- 
dence as  the  nature  of  the  case  admits  of.* 

I  have  already  stated,  that  the  ansM^er  of  Decov^r  ap- 
peared to  me  indirectly  to  deny  that  the  faith  of  Friends 
embraces  the  enumerated  doctrines  insisted  on  by  Hen- 
drickson,  and  to  claim  freedom  of  opinion  on  those  points. 
I  feel  more  assured  that  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
answer,  from  the  course  taken  in  the  cross-examination  of 
the  witnesses,  in  which  an  evident  effort  appears,  to  show 
a  want  of  uniformity  among  ancient  writers  of  the  society, 
when  treating  on  these  subjects;  and  also,  from  the  grounds 
taken  by  the  counsel  in  the  argument  of  this  cause.  It 
was  here  most  explicitly,  and  I  may  add,  most  ingeniously 
and  eloquently  insisted,  not  only  that  these  doctrines  do  not 
belong  to  the  faith  of  Fiiends,  but  that  they  cannot ;  be- 
cause they  must  interfere  with  another  acknowledged  fun- 
damental principle  of  the  society — the  guidance  of  the 
light  within.  Now  if  it  be  established,  that  these  doctrines 
are  part  of  the  religious  faith  of  Friends,  can  it  be  neces- 
sary, under  these  pleadings,  to  prove  that  Decow's  party 
do  not  hold  to  the  faith  of  Friends  ?  Decow  says,  "  my 
party,  or  preparative  meeting,  hold  the  faith  of  Friends, 
but  these  doctrines  are  no  part  of  that  faith;  therefore  we 
do  not,  as  Friends,  hold  to  these  doctrines."  But  Friends 
do  hold  these  doctrines :  Decow's  party  does  not ;  there- 
fore they  are  not  one,  with  Friends,  in  religious  doctrine. 
And  it  will  not  materially  vary  the  argument,  that -they 
are  at  liberty  to  hold  them,  or  not,  as  the  light  within  shall 
direct.  It  is  belief  which  gives  character  to  a  sect,  and 
right  of  membership  to  an  individual.  Liberty  has  the 
same  practical  eflbct  as  unhelief,  when  applied  to  an  essen- 
tial doctrine  of  a  religious  society.  An  individual  cannot 
avail  himself  of  his  faith  in  any  doctrine  which  he  is  at 
liberty  to  believe  or  not.  Were  it  otherwise,  we  might  all 
be  members  of  any  religious  society  whatever. 

But  as  I  may  have  mistaken  the  meaning  of  Decow's 
answer,  which  is  certainly  not  very  explicit  in  this  parti-» 

*  3  Merrivale,  411,  413,  417.    3  Dessaussure,  557. 
23 


86 

cular,  I  will  next  turn  to  the  evidence,  and  discover,  if  I 
can,  what  is  the  fair  result  of  the  examination  of  that. 

Decow  offers  no  testimony  respecting  the  belief  of  his 
party  in  the  particular  doctrines  in  question.  His  witness- 
es refuse  to  answer  on  these  points,*  and  his  party  protest 
against  all  creeds,  or  public  declarations  of  faith,  as  an 
abridgment  of  christian  liberty.  Having  no  su<*>h  public 
declaration  to  resort  to,  we  must  ascertain  the  truth  from 
other  sources,  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  be  ascertained. 

Several  public  addresses  were  issued  by  the  party  called 
"Hicksite,"  about  the  time  of  the  separation,  setting  forth 
their  reasons  for  it.  In  that  of  April  twenty-first,  1827, 
it  is  declared  that,  "  the  unity  of  this  body  is  interrupted, 
that  a  division  exists  among  us,  developing  in  its  progress, 
views  which  appear  incompatible  with  each  other,  and  feel- 
ings averse  to  a  reconciliation.  Doctrines  held  by  one  part 
of  the  society,  and  which  we  believe  to  be  sou?id  and  edi- 
fying, are  pronounced  by  the  other  part  to  be  uiisoimd and 
spurious."  A  prominent  complaint,  in  these  papers,  is, 
that  Friends  travelling  in  the  ministry,  had  been  publicly 
opposed  in  their  meetings  for  worship,  and  laboured  with 
contrary  to  the  discipline.  Upon  looking  into  the  testi- 
mony, we  find  that  the  prominent  individual  who  furnished 
occasion  for  these  complaints,  is  Elias  Hicks;  and  that  the 
interruptions  and  treatment  of  him,  deemed  exceptionable, 
had  their  origin  in  the  doctrines  which  he  preached.  (voL 
1.  Evid.  308,  474,  478.)  Can  it  be  denied,  then,  that  dif- 
ferences in  doctrine  existed,  and  differences  of  that  serious 
nature  calculated  to  destroy  the  unity  of  the  society,  and 
which  had  their  full  share  in  producing  the  separation 
which  took  place. 

Decow  has  introduced  several  witnesses,  who  testify, 
and  no  doubt  conscientiousl}^  that  they  believe  they  hold 
the  ancient  faith  of  Friends,  but  they  refuse  to  tell  us  what 
this  faith  is,  in  reference  to  these  enumerated  doctrines. 
We  cannot  give  much  weight  to  opinion,  where  we  should 
hsive  facts.  The  belief  should  refer  to  specific  doctrines, 
that  the  court  may  judge  as  w^ellas  the  witnesses,  whether 
it  was  the  ancient  faith  or  not.  The  court,  in  that  case, 
would  have  an  opportunity  of  estimating  the  accuracy  of 
the  knowledge  upon  which  the  belief  is  founded. 

How  stands  the  case,  then,  upon  the  proofs  1  A  fund 
was  created  for  the  education  of  the  poor  children  of  a 
certain   preparative   meeting  of  the   religious  society  of 

»  1  vol.  Evid,  pages  387, 381, 406, 475.  2  vol.  Ibid,  pages  13, 90,  206. 


87 

Friends.  That  body  has  lately  become  separated.  Its 
unity  is  broken ;  the  views  of  its  members  are  incompatible  ; 
and  doctrines  held  by  one  party  to  be  sound,  are  p'onouncedhy 
the  other  party  to  be  unsoimd.  And  two  distinct  meetings 
exist  at  this  time,  and  each  claims  the  guardianship  and 
use  of  this  fund.  For  the  safety  of  the  debtor,  these  par- 
ties have  been  directed  to  interplead,  and  to  show  their 
respective  pretensions  to  be  a  preparative  meeting  of  Friends, 
One  of  them  sets  out  certain  doctrines  as  characteristic 
of  the  society,  and  that  they  adhere  to  them,  and  that  the 
other  party  does  not.  They  go  on  and  prove  their  case, 
so  far  as  respects  themselves.  The  other  party  allege 
that  they  hold  the  faith  of  Friends  ?  but  instead  of  proving 
it,  they  call  upon  their  adversaries  to  prove  the  contrary. 
In  my  opinion  it  was  incumbent  upon  each  of  the  parties 
to  make  out  their  case,  if  they  would  stand  upon  equal 
terms,  on  this  question  of  doctrine.  And  especially  upon 
this  preparative  meeting,  connected  as  it  is,  with  a  yearly 
meeting,  which,  in  point  of  form  at  least,  is  not  the  yearly 
meeting  that  was  in  existence  at  the  creation  of  the  fund ; 
and  which  has  furnished jorima  facia  evidence  that  it  has 
withdrawn,  or  separated  from  that  meeting,  in  consequence 
of  disputes  in  some  measure  doctrinal.  The  court  will 
r\o\.  force  either  party  in  this  cause  to  declare  or  prove  their 
religious  doctrines.  But  if  doctrines  be  important,  the 
party  which  would  avail  themselves  of  their  doctrines, 
must  prove  them.  They  are  peculiarly  within  their  know- 
ledge, and  although  they  may  have  the  right  to  withhold 
them,  yet  if  they  do,  they  cannot  expect  success  in  their 
cause.  The  money  must  be  awarded  to  that  party  which 
supports,  by  proper  proof,  its  pretensions  to  it. 

Under  this  view  of  the  case,  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to 
attempt  any  further  investigation  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
party  called  "  Hicksite."  And  if  ascertained,  I  certainly 
would  not  inquire,  as  an  officer  of  this  court,  whether  they 
are  right  or  wrong.  It  is  enough,  that  it  is  7iot  made  to  ap- 
pear that  they  correspond  with  the  religious  faith  of  the 
society  of  Friends. 

I  would  merely  add,  that  if  it  be  true,  that  the  "  Ortho- 
dox" party  believe  in  the  doctrines  above  mentioned,  and 
the  Hicksite"  party  consider  that  every  member  has  a 
right  to  his  own  belief  on  those  subjects,  they  well  might 
say  that  their  differences  were  destructive  of  their  unity. 
If  their  members  and  ministers  exercise  perfect  freedom 
of  thought  and  speech  on  these  points,  their  temples  for 


88 

worship,  and  it  is  to  be  feared,  their  own  hearts^  would 
soon  be  deserted  by  the  place-loving  spirit  of  the  Master. 
There  is  an  essential  incompatibility  in  adverse  views, 
with  regard  to  these  doctrines.  The  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures,  cannot  be  debated 
in  a  worshipping  assembly,  without  defeating  the  proper 
purposes  of  meeting  together. 

And  upon  this  supposition  too,  the  propriety,  as  well  as 
legality,  of  this  court's  noticing  the  doctrines  of  the  pre- 
parative meeting,  which  is  to  superintend  the  expenditure 
of  this  fund,  is  too  manifest  to  admit  of  doubt.  We  have 
already  seen,  by  reference  to  the  discipline  of  this  society, 
with  what  earnestness  they  endeavoured  to  educate  their 
children  in  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  Scriptures ; 
and  whoever  looks  into  that  discipline,  cannot  but  discover 
their  anxiety  to  train  them  up  in  their  own  peculiar  views 
of  the  christian  religion.  To  effect  these  purposes,  their 
yearly  meeting  has  directed  their  attention  to  the  subject 
of  schools.  "  The  education  of  our  youth,"  says  the  dis- 
cipline, "  in  piety  and  virtue,  and  giving  them  useful  learn- 
ing under  the  tuition  of  religious,  prudent  persons,  having 
for  many  years  engaged  the  solid  attention  of  this  meeting, 
and  advices  thereon  having  been  from  time  to  time  issued 
to  the  several  subordinate  meetings,  it  is  renewedly  de- 
sired, that  quarterly,  monthly  and  preparative  meetings 
may  be  excited  to  proper  exertions  for  the  institution  and 
support  of  schools ;  for  want  of  which,  it  has  been  observed, 
that  children  have  been  committed  to  the  care  of  transient 
persons  of  doubtful  character,  and  sometimes  of  very 
corrupt  minds."  "  It  is,  therefore,  indispensably  incum- 
bent on  us,  to  guard  them  against  this  danger,  and  pro- 
cure such  tutors,  of  our  own  religious  persuasion,  as  are 
not  only  capable  of  instructing  them  in  useful  learning,  to 
fit  them  for  the  business  of  this  life,  but  to  train  them  in  the 
knowledge  of  their  duty  to  God,  and  one  towards  another. 
Under  this  discipline,  and  by  the  exertions  of  superior 
meetings,  (vol.  2.  Evid.  345,  346,  436,  437.)  as  well  as  of 
the  members  of  the  Chesterfield  preparative  meeting,  this 
school  at  Crosswicks  was  established,  and  this  fund  raised 
for  its  support.  It  thus  appears,  that  the  fund  was  intended 
to  promote,  not  merely  the  secular  knowledge  of  the  pupils, 
but  their  growth  in  the  religious  principles  deemed  funda- 
mental by  this  people ;  or  at  least,  to  prevent,  through  the 
instruction  of  teachers  of  other  religious  principles,  or 
wholly  without  principle,  the  .alienation  of  the  minds  of 


'> 


89 

their  children  from  the  faith  of  their  fathers.  Could  these 
meetings,  and  these  contributors  have  contemplated  that  this 
fund  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  men  of  opposite  opinions, 
or  of  no  opinions  ?  Could  these  men,  who  acknowledge  the 
obligation  of  this  discipline,  enjoining,  as  it  does,  upon  pa- 
rents and  heads  of  families"  to  instruct  their  children  in  the 
doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  christian  religion,  as  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures,"  and,  "  to  prevent  their  children 
from  having  or  reading  books  and  papers  tending  to  pre- 
judice the  profession  of  the  christian  religion,  or  to  create 
the  least  doiiht  concerning  the  authenticity  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures, or  of  those  saving  truths  declared  in  them,  lest  their 
infant  and  feeble  minds  should  be  poisoned  thereby."  I 
say,  is  it  possible  that  such  men  could  have  expected  that 
their  children  should  be  taught  by  Elias  Hicks,  that  the 
Scriptures  "have  been  the  cause  of  fourfold  more  harm 
than  good  to  Christendom  since  the  apostles'  days."  And 
that  "  to  suppose  a  written  rule  necessary,  or  much  useful, 
is  to  impeach  the  divine  character?"  Or,  that  they  should 
be  taught  by  him,  or  by  any  one  else,  that  each  individual 
must  interpret  them  for  himself,  entirely  untrammelled  by 
the  opinions  of  man ;  and  that  the  dictates  of  the  light 
within  are  of  paramount  authority  to  Scripture,  even  when 
opposing  its  precepts?  Surely,  this  would  be  a  breadh  of 
trust,  and  a  perversion  of  the  fund  which  the  arm  of  this 
court  not  only  has,  but  ought  to  have  power  to  prevent. 

I  would  not  be  understood,  to  impute  the  doctrines  of 
Elias  Hicks  to  that  party  which  unwillingly  bears  his  name. 
Nor  do  I  mean  to  intimate,  that  they  would  abuse  this  trust. 
But  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that  doctrines  may  justly 
have  an  influence  on  the  decision  of  the  question  now  be- 
fore us.  And  without  coming  to  any  conclusion  with  re- 
spect to  their  doctrines,  I  am  of  opinion,  that  this  fund 
should  be  awarded  to  that  meeting  which  has  shown,  at 
least  to  my  satisfaction,  that  they  agree  in  doctrine  with 
the  society  of  Friends,  as  it  existed  at  the  origin  of  this  trusi. 

I  do,  therefore,  respectfully  recommend  to  His  Excelr 
lency  the  Chancellor,  to  decree  upon  this  bill  of  interplea- 
der, that  the  principal  and  interest  due  on  the  said  bond, 
of  right  belong,  and  are  payable  to  the  said  Joseph  Hen- 
drickson ;  and  that  he  be  permitted  to  proceed  on  his  ori- 
ginal bill  of  complaint,  or  otherwise,  according  to  the  rules 
and  practice  of  the  court  of  chancery. 

GEORGE  K.  DRAKE. 
23* 


THE 


PURCHASE    LAW    SUIT. 


The  following  observations  and  statements  will  explain 
the  origin  of  the  suit,  in  which  the  annexed  opinion  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  New  York  has  been  pro- 
nounced. 

The  meetings  of  the  Society  of  Friends  for  the  manage- 
ment of  its  internal  affairs,  consist  of  four  grades,  between 
which  there  is  a  regular  connexion  and  subordination. 
First,  Preparative  Meetings,  which  are  the  lowest  in  au- 
thority, and  subordinate  and  accountable  to  the  monthly 
meetings.  Second,  Monthly  Meetings,  in  which  the  exe- 
cutive power  is  principally  lodged.  These  are  generally 
composed  of  several  preparative  meetings,  and  are  subor- 
dinate and  accountable  to  the  Quarterly  Meetings,  which 
mostly  consist  of  a  number  of  monthly  meetings,  and  are 
responsible  to  the  "Yearly  Meeting,  which  is  the  supreme 
head.  Preparative  and  monthly  meetings  have  the  care 
of  providing  for  those  members  who  may  be  in  indigent 
circumstances ;  and  it  frequently  happens  that  funds  are 
raised  either  by  donations  or  legacies,  and  placed  under 
their  care,  the  income  of  which  is  applied  to  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  poor,  the  education  of  their  children,  and 
other  purposes  of  the  Society. 

The  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  at  Purchase,  in  the 
county  of  Westchester,  state  of  New  York,  held  and  ma- 
naged such  a  fund,  amounting  in  lands  and  money  to  about 
three  thousand  dollars,  the  income  of  which  was  to  be 
appropriated  to  schooling  the  children  of  members  of  that 
preparative  meeting.  The  fund  "was  raised  by  the  vol- 
untary contributions  of  the  members,  and  by  legacies,  and 
the  preparative  meeting  appointed  one  of  its  members  as 
treasurer.* 

*  This  meeting  is  subordinate  and  accountable  to  Purchase  monthly 
Mid  quarterly  meeting. 


91 

James  Field,  treasurer  of  this  fund,  and  plaintiff  in  the 
suit,  loaned  to  Charles  Field,  the  defendant,  on  his  note, 
payable  to  him  or  his  successor,  the  sum  of  five  hundred 
dollars,  part  of  the  fund,  for  which  he  was  to  pay  inte- 
rest. Subsequently  to  this,  the  unhappy  controversy  in- 
troduced by  Elias  Hicks  and  his  doctrines,  produced  a 
separation  in  the  Purchase  preparative  and  monthly  meet- 
ing. The  plaintiff  went  with  the  Hicksite  party,  and  the 
defendant  remained  with  the  Friends.  There  were  now 
two  bodies,  each  claiming  to  be  the  Purchase  preparative 
meeting.  The  Hicksites  continued  James  Field  as  their 
treasurer,  and  in  the  First  month,  (January,)  1830,  the 
preparative  meeting  of  Friends  released  James  Field,  and 
appointed  Thomas  Carpenter  treasurer  of  the  fund  on  its 
behalf. 

Charles  Field,  the  defendant,  declined  recognizing  James 
Field  as  treasurer,  and  paid  the  note  to  Thomas  Carpenter, 
the  person  appointed  by  Friends. 

The  Hicksites  had  possession  of  ten  meeting  houses  out 
of  the  eleven  in  Westchester  county,  and  of  the  whole  of 
this  school  fund  except  the  five  hundred  dollars  in  question. 
On  finding  that  Charles  Field  declined  making'any  further 
payments  to  James  Field  as  treasurer  of  the  fund,  a  suit 
at  law  was  commenced  for  the  recovery  of  the  money- 
The  cause  came  on  for  trial  before  Judge  Emott,  at  a  cir- 
cuit court  of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  held  at.  Bedford,  West- 
chester county,  in  the  Ninth  month,  (September.)  1830. 

The  counsel  for  the  prosecution  took  the  ground  that 
the  case  was  to  be  viewed  simply  as  a  money  transaction 
between  two  individuals,  without  reference  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  trust,  or  the  connexion  of  the  treasurer  with 
the  society  of  Friends.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  con- 
tended by  the  counsel  for  Friends,  that  the  question 
whether  James  Field  should  recover  or  not,  must  depend 
upon  the  fact  of-  his  being  the  legal  treasurer  of  the  fund, 
this  again  must  depend  on  the  character  of  the  meeting 
that  appointed  him.  There  were  before  the  court,  two 
bodies  of  people,  each  claiming  to  be  the  Purchase  pre- 
parative meeting  of  Friends,  and  also  two  persons,  each 
assuming  to  be  treasurer  of  the  fund  under  the  authority 
of  the  respective  meetings  by  which  they  were  appointed. 
James  Field  having  no  claim  to  this  money  in  his  own 
right,  but  only  as  the  representative  of  the  preparative 
meeting,  for  whose  use  it  was  held,  bis  right  to  recover 


92 

must  depend  on  the  character  of  the  meeting  which  ap- 
pointed him.  Both  the  meetings  could  not  be  the  Purchase 
preparative  meeting  of  Friends ;  consequently  one  must 
be  the  genuine  and  the  other  a  spurious  meeting.  It  was 
proved  that  every  preparative  meeting  of  Friends  must  be 
in  connexion  with  a  regularly  organized  monthly  meeting 
of  the  Society,  and  subordinate  to  it,  and  subject  to  its 
control.  That  the  separation  took  place  in  the  monthly 
meeting  with  which  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting 
was  thus  connected,  in  the  Sixth  month,  (June,)  1828. 
That  the  monthly  meetings  of  the  Society  of  Friends  are 
always  opened  by  the  clerk,  who  reads  a  minute  to  that 
effect,  after  which  the  meeting  proceeds  to  business.  That 
at  the  monthly  meeting  above  alluded  to,  Henry  Griffin, 
the  clerk  duly  appointed,  was  prevented  from  taking  his 
seat  at  the  clerk's  table  as  usual,  by  the  violent  and  tumul- 
tuous conduct  of  some  of  the  Hicksite  party,  who  com- 
pelled him  and  those  Friends  who  wished  to  preserve  the 
order  of  the  meeting,  to  leave  the  house,  and  withdraw  to 
the  yard,  where  he  opened  the  monthly  meeting  in  the 
usual  manner,  and  proceeded  with  its  business.  That  this 
meeting  has  been  continued  ever  since  as  a  regular  month- 
ly meeting  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  in  connexion  with 
its  proper  quarterly  and  yearly  meeting.  Hence  it  was 
maintained,  that  as  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting 
which  appointed  Thomas  Carpenter  its  treasurer,  was  held 
in  connexion  with,  and  subordinate  to,  the  authority  of  this 
monthly  meeting,  it  was  the  meeting  for  the  use  of  whose 
members  the  trust  was  created,  and  he  must  be  considered 
as  the  legal  treasurer,  entitled  to  the  money  in  controversy. 
That  the  Hicksite  party  remained  in  the  meeting  house, 
after  having  expelled  Friends,  not  having  the  clerk,  or 
being  in  any  way  organized,  had  no  claim  to  be  the  month- 
ly meeting  of  Friends,  and  that  as  the  preparative  meet- 
ing which  continued  James  Field  treasurer,  was  in  con- 
nexion with  this  latter  body,  it  took  its  character  from  it, 
and  could  have  no  claim  to  interfere  with  the  fund,  as  it 
was  not  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting  for  whose 
benefit  the  trust  was  created.  It  was  also  proved,  that  in 
the  meetings  of  the  Society  -of  Friends,  it  was  contrary  to 
settled  usage  and  principles  to  decide  any  question  by  vote, 
count  of  numbers,  or  a  reference  to  majorities,  and  con- 
sequently that  no  majority  of  the  Hicksite  party  could 
render  their  acts  valid,  if  they  proceeded  contrary  to  the 


93 

discipline  and  usages  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  enter- 
tained doctrines  adverse  to  those  which  it  had  always  held 
and  acknowledged.  The  counsel  for  the  defendant  offer- 
ed to  prove  that  the  Hicksite  party  had  departed  from  the 
established  doctrines  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  from 
its  discipline  and  customs,  and  therefore  could  have  no 
claim  to  the  control  of  the  fund  in  question,  which  was  a 
trust  for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  the  members  of  that  So- 
ciety. 

On  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  it  was  urged,  that  the  Hicks- 
ite party  comprehended  a  large  majority  of  those  who 
had  belonged  to  the  preparative  and  monthly  meetings 
previous  to  the  separation,  and  consequently  that  they 
had  a  right  to  control  and  manage  the  fund. 

Several  of  the  witnesses  produced,  were  members  of 
Purchase  preparative  meeting,  and  their  evidence  was  re- 
fused by  the  court,  on  the  ground  of  their  having  an  in- 
terest in  the  fund  in  question  : — of  the  number  thus  re- 
jected, Thomas  Carpenter,  the  treasurer  appointed  by  the 
Purchase  preparative  meeting  of  Friends,  was  one.  The 
court  also  refused  to  hear  any  testimony  respecting  the 
doctrines  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  those  entertained 
by  the  Hicksite  party.  In  his  charge  to  the  jury,  the  judge 
took  the  naked  facts  as  they  were  presented  in  the  evi- 
dence, stripped  of  all  the  collateral  circumstances,  and 
charged  the  jury,  that  as  the  Hicksite  party  included  a 
majority  of  the  members,  and  as  James  Field,  the  plaintiff, 
was  the  treasurer  at  the  time  the  note  was  given,  and  still 
was  considered  so  by  the  greater  portion  of  the  persons 
then  constituting  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting,  he 
must  recover.  The  jury,  after  being  out  a  short  time, 
brought  in  a  verdict  accordingly. 

The  cause  was  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
state  on  a  bill  of  exceptions,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
a  new  trial  at  the  Fifth  Month  (May)  term,  1832,  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  and  was  ably  argued  by  David  B. 
Ogden,  and  Hugh  Maxwell,  for  the  defendant,  and  James 
Talmage,  and  William  Silliman,  for  the  plaintiff.  Justices 
Nelson  and  Sutherland  sitting,  Justice  Sutherland  being 
absent  from  indisposition.  The  opinion,  in  which  the 
bench  united,  was  delivered  by  Judge  Nelson,  at  the  Oc- 
tober (Tenth  Month)  term  last,  in  Albany. 


OPINION 

OF 

THE    SUPREME    COURT 

OF    THE 

STATE  OF  NEW  YORK,  &c. 

JAMES  FIELD  vs.  CHARLES  FIELD. 
BY  THE  COURT— NELSON,  JUDGE. 

The  objections  to  the  recovery  on  the  ground  of  variance, 
between  the  date  of  the  instrument  produced,  and  tlie  one  de- 
scribed in  the  declaration  is  untenable.  There  is  none  in  sub- 
stance or  fact.  The  pleader  does  not  profess  to  set  out  the  in- 
strument verbatim. 

The  judge  erred  in  excluding  the  testimony  of  Thomas  Car- 
penter, for  under  no  view  of  the  case  that  we  can  take,  was  he 
directly  interested  in  the  event.  He  had  an  interest  in  the  fund 
in  common  with  the  other  contributors  or  members  of  the  Pur- 
chase preparative  meeting,  but  he  was  called  against  that  inte- 
rest, so  far  as  it  was  immediately  involved  in  the  issue  then 
trying.  At  all  events  as  between  the  immediate  parties  to  the 
suit,  his  interest  was  in  favour  of  the  plaintiff,  as  the  fund,  if 
collected,  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  proprietors;  and  as  regarded 
his  position,  upon  all  the  facts  disclosed  on  the  trial,  we  thinii 
he  was  indifferent,  or  at  least,  his  interest  was  neutralized.  It 
is  said  he  was  interested  in  sustaining  the  payment  of  the  mo- 
ney to  himself  as  treasurer,  by  the  defendant,  but  we  appre- 
hend it  would  be  difficult  to  show  in  what  way  he  could  be  thus 
interested.  Admitting  that  he  would  be,  at  law  or  in  equity, 
bound  to  refund  the  money  to  the  defendant  if  he  could  not  sus- 
tain his  right  or  title  to  receive  it  as  treasurer,  the  result  of 
this  suit  did  not  necessarily  determine  that  question,  as  he  was 
not  a  party  to  it,  and  would  not  be  bound  by  it.  Whether  he 
■would  be  bound  to  refund  the  money,  would  depend  upon  a  suit 
directly  between  the  parties  themsel/as.  A  recovery  by  the 
plaintiff  in  this  case,  would  have  perhaps  an  essential  bearing 


95 

upon  that  question,  but  would  not  control  it,  and  the  interest 
would  be  too  remote  and  contingent  to  affect  the  competency  of 
the  witness.  But  conceding  that,  upon  the  recovery  by  the 
plaintiff  here,  the  witness  was  under  obligations  to  refund,  how 
could  he  be  interested  ?  The  fund  was  not  his,  and  whether  he 
paid  it  to  the  defendant,  or  held  or  disbursed  it  as  treasurer,  so 
far  as  his  own  interest  was  involved,  it  was  indifferent  to  him. 
If  he  was  bound  to  refund,  it  would  be  confessedly  upon  the 
ground,  that  he  is  not  the  legal  treasurer  or  trustee  of  the  fund, 
and  that  the  present  plaintiff  is.  And  so  far  as  the  witness' 
original  and  joint  interest  in  the  fund  is  involved,  it  is  the  same 
to  him  in  judgment  of  law,  whether  the  fund  is  held  or  dis- 
bursed by  himself  as  treasurer,  or  by  the  present  plaintiff  as 
treasurer,  for  we  are  bound  to  believe  either  would  perform  his 
duty  with  fidelity.  I  am  therefore  clearly  of  opinion,  the  wit- 
ness was  not  interested  so  far  as  to  render  him  incompetent,  on 
the  ground — 

1st.  As  to  his  position  as  treasurer  holding  the  fund,  he  was 
but  a  naked  trustee,  and  his  own  interest  would  be  unaffected, 
whether  he  retained  the  fund,  or  was  obliged  to  repay  it ;  and 
furtlier,  even  supposing  it  to  be  affected  by  the  repayment,  that 
event  was  not  a  direct  and  necessary  consequence  of  the  reco- 
very in  this  suit,  and  was  too  remote  and  contingent  to  exclude 
him,  and. 

2d.  So  far  as  his  joint  and  fractional  interest  in  the  fund 
was  involved  in  the  suit,  he  was  called  in  favour  of  it,  for  the 
ground  upon  which  the  plaintiff  claimed  the  right  to  recover 
was  as  trustee  of  the  fund,  for  the  benefit  of  the  proprietors, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  if  he  recovers  he  is  bound  so  to  hold 
it.  The  decision  of  this  question  is  not  very  important  in  the 
case,  as  probably,  every  material  fact  which  could  be  proved 
by  this  witness  was  subsequently  sworn  to  by  others. 

The  great  and  important  question  involved  in  the  case  is, 
whether  payment  of  the  note  was  established  on  the  trial,  and 
this  involves  the  inquiry  as  to  the  legality  of  the  appointment 
of  Thomas  Carpenter  as  treasurer  of  the  Purchase  preparative 
meeting  school  fund,  on  the  1st  January,  1830.  If  he  was,  the 
issue  under  the  pleadings  was  established  in  favour  of  the  de- 
fendant, and  payment  to  the  treasurer  would  be  a  good  defence. 
The  material  facts  upon  which  this  question  must  depend,  and 
upon  which  alone  we  must  determine  it,  are  not  contested  in  the 
case,  though  the  generality  of  them  leave  in  a  measure  some  of 
the  leading  features  of  it,  in  a  little  obscurity.  We  should  have 
been  better  satisfied  if  the  case  presented  a  more  minute  and 
full  account  of  the  origin,  purpose,  and  also  the  manner  of  con- 
trolling and  disposing  of  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting 


96 

school  fund,  which,  at  the  same  time,  would  necessarily  have 
given  us,  with  more  particularity,  its  connexion  with  the  Pur« 
chase  preparative  meeting  of  the  Friends. 

We  must  take  the  case,  however,  as  we  understand  it  from 
the  testimony  ;  which  is,  that  this  fund  many  years  ago  was 
raised  by  voluntary  contributions  from  members  of  the  Pur- 
chase preparative  meeting  of  the  Friends,  residing  within  its 
limits,  and  by  legacies.  That  such  fund  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  members  of  said  meeting,  and  is  managed  under  its  direc- 
tion by  a  treasurer  appointed  by  them.  The  fund  in  1817 
amounted  to  ^860,  besides  150  acres  of  land  left  as  a  legacy 
from  one  Clapp.  The  meetings  of  the  Friends  are  divided  in- 
to yearly,  quarterly,  monthly,  and  preparative.  No  quarterly 
meeting  is  to  be  set  up  or  discontinued  but  by  a  yearly  meeting  ; 
no  monthly  but  by  a  quarterly  meeting,  and  no  preparative  but 
by  a  monthly,  with  the  approbation  of  the  quarterly  meeting, 
and  these  meetings  are  subordinate  and  accountable  in  the  man- 
ner just  stated.  The  Purchase  preparative  meeting  of  the 
Friends,  in  this  case,  was  set  up  as  early  as  1790,  and  has  been 
regularly  -continued  since,  down  to  the  separation  in  April, 
1828,  and  since  that  time  each  division  has  held  separate  meet- 
ings. The  plaintiff  was  their  treasurer  at  the  time  of  the  se- 
paration. Thomas  Carpenter  has  been  since  appointed  by  the 
division  called  the  orthodox  Friends.  It  further  appears  that 
according  to  the  rules  and  usage  of  the  Friends  at  their  meet- 
ings, no  meeting  is  considered  organised  until  the  clerk  of  the 
meeting  takes  his  place  at  the  table,  makes  a  minute  of  the  meet- 
ing, and  reads  it, — after  this  it  proceeds  to  business; 

The  monthly  meeting,  after  the  separation  in  New  York,  was 
in  June,  1828,  at  which  H.  Griffin  attended,  and  was  forcibly 
prevented  acting  as  clerk,  by  persons  who  had  surrounded  the 
table.  The  clerk  withdrew  with  a  numfeer  of  the  Friends,  and 
assembled  in  the  yard  of  the  house,  where  they  met,  and  there 
opened  the  meeting  according  to  the  usual  course  of  business. 
It  was  this  monthly  meeting  that  appointed  the  Purchase  pre- 
parative meeting  at  which  Thomas  Carpenter  was  appointed 
treasurer,  1st  January,  1830.  The  Purchase  preparative  meet- 
ing at  which  the  appointment  was  made  was  held,  and  the  trea- 
surer appointed,  according  to  the  rules  and  disciphne  of  the 
Society,  as  known  and  acted  upon  for  many  years. 

It  was  offered  to  be  proved  on  the  trial,  that  the  Hicksite 
party  had  abandoned  the  religious  faitli  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  with  the  view  of  contending  that  this  section  of 
Friends,  who  continued  the  plaintiff  as  a  treasurer  of  the  Pur- 
chase preparative  meeting,  had  forfeited  their  character  as  such, 
and  all  the  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  it.     We  think  the 


97  ^ 

judge  was  right  in  rejecting  this  proof.  Tn  a  court  of  law 
we  can  look  only  to  the  legal  rights  of  the  parties  to  control 
the  fund  in  question,  and  they  must  depend  upon  the  constitu- 
tion and  principles  of  the  association  of  the  Friends  and  modes 
of  proceeding,  as  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting  confessedly 
have  the  exclusive  management  and  direction  of  it.  So  long 
as  the  forms  and  modes  of  proceeding  by  the  association,  under 
whose  direction  the  original  contributors  placed  the  fund,  are 
strictly  complied  with  in  its  management  and  control,  a  couij 
of  law  are  incompetent  to  interfere.  If  there  has  been,  or  is 
about  to  be,  a  diversion  of  the  fund  from  the  original  purpose 
and  object  of  it,  under  the  form  of  legal  and  constitutional 
proceedings  by  the  association,  or  otherwise,  it  belongs  pecu- 
liarly to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  court  of  equity  to  interpose  and 
corrector  prevent  the  error.  Thus,  if  the  object  of  the  origi- 
nal contributors  of  this  fund  was  the  instruction  and  educa- 
tion of  their  children  in  the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  Society 
of  Friends,  as  understood  and  believed  at  the  time  it  was 
placed  under  the  direction  of  one  of  their  associations  or  meet- 
ings, it  is  quite  clear,  both  on  principle  and  authority,  that 
such  objects  should  be  strictly  observed  by  those  who  have  the 
management  of  it,  and  an  ample  remedy  exists  against  any 
perversion  of  them.  Tn  such  case,  the  question  is  not,  which 
faith  or  doctrine  is  the  soundest  or  most  orthodox  ?  This  is 
not  the  object  of  the  inquiry  ;  but  for  what  object  or  purpose 
was  the  fund  originally  established  by  the  founders  of  it  ? 
The  court  proceeds  to  enforce  the  observance  and  execution  of 
ascertained  trusts  in  which  rights  of  property  are  concerned, 
not  the  peculiar  doctrines  or  faith  of  either  party,  though  their 
existence  and  the  nature  of  them,  may  be  incidentally  involved 
in  the  course  of  proceeding.  This  part  of  the  case  is  very  fully 
discussed  by  Lord  Eldon  in  the  case  of  the  Attorney  General 
vs.  Pearson,  3  Merivale  Reports,  352,  and  principles  applica- 
ble to  it  are  there  clearly  stated. 

If  we  look  at  the  constitution  and  modes  of  proceeding  of 
the  monthly  and  preparative  meetings  of  the  Friends,  as  detailed 
by  the  witnesses  on  both  sides  in  the  case,  I  cannot  entertain  a 
doubt  that  Thomas  Carpenter  was  legally  appointed  the  succes- 
sor  of  the  plaintiff,  in  the  office  of  treasurer  of  the  Purchase 
preparative  meeting,  on  the  1st  of  January,  1830.  It  is  said 
that  the  monthly  meeting,  in  June,  1828,  under  which  the  Pur- 
chase preparative  meeting  was  held,  was  not  the  legitimate  one, 
and  that  the  latter,  according  to  the  system  of  the  meetings  of 
the  Friends,  was  therefore  held  without  authority.  The  fact 
is  otherwise,  if  we  regard  the  only  account  we  have  of  the 
rules  and  practice  of  their  pi-oceedings.  H.  Griffin  was  the 
24 


98 

clerk  of  that  meeting.  This  office  is  the  most  important  one 
belonging  to  it.  He  decides  all  questions  that  arise,  after 
hearing  the  discussions  and  opinions  of  the  members,  and  in 
the  language  of  the  witnesses,  according  to  the  "  solid  sense" 
of  the  meeting  as  understood  by  him,  without  vote,  or  regard  to 
numbers.  This  may  be  a  singular  mode  of  proceeding,  and  of 
questionable  merit,  but  the  fact  is  undisputed,  and  we  are  not  to 
disregard  it.  This  officer,  also,  has  a  right  to  open  and  or- 
ganize the  meeting,  according  to  undisputed  evidence.  He 
did  open  the  monthly  meeting  at  the  time  and  place  appointed 
according  to  the  custom,  and  under,  and  in  pursuance  of,  this 
authority,  was  held  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting,  at 
which  T,  Carpenter  was  regularly  appointed. 

It  is  true,  by  the  turbulence  of  some  of  the  members,  he  was 
prevented  from  taking  his  seat  at  the  table  in  the  room  prepared 
for  the  meeting,  and  was  compelled  to  hold  it  in  an  adjacent 
place,  but  this  did  not  deprive  him  of  his  office,  or  prevent  the 
discharge  of  his  duty,  nor  the  orderly  organization  of  the 
meeting  :  much  less  did  it  legalize  the  tumultuous  assemblage 
which  he  left,  who  were  without  the  only  officers  that,  accord- 
ing to  their  ancient  and  accustomed  proceedings,  could  organize 
them  or  dispose  of  their  business. 

The  question  is  not  whether  the  meeting,  in  the  absence  of  the 
clerk,  or  of  his  incompetency  to  act  for  any  other  cause,  had 
not  the  power  to  appoint  one  in  his  place.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  it  would  have  that  power  from  necessity,  and  to  preserve 
it  from  dissolution.  But  can  they  by  mere  force  and  caprice 
drive  away  this  officer,  whose  term  had  not  expired,  in  viola- 
tion of  all  the  forms  of  their  proceedings  and  principles  of  their 
society.  It  is  said  that  a  majority  of  the  meeting  concurred  in 
this  act,  and  the  judge  at  the  circuit,  supported  its  legality, 
upon  this  ground.  We  cannot  assent  to  this  position.  In  order 
to  maintain  it,  the  plaintiff  must  show  that  the  monthly  meet- 
ings of  the  Friends  were  governed  upon  the  principle  that  a 
majority  should  control.  Even  were  we  to  assume,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  proof  on  the  subject,  that  this  popular  principle 
was  applicable  to  them,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  do  so,  as  the 
contrary  expressly  appears.  In  no  instance  do  the  opinions  of 
a  majority  of  the  members  control  their  proceedings,  according 
to  long  established  discipline  and  usage  ;  and  other  modes  of 
deciding  all  questions  which  arise,  are  universally  practised. 

Besides,  even  the  majority  principle  was  not  applied  in  eject- 
ing the  clerk  in  this  instance.  No  vote  was  taken.  None  of 
the  usages  and  principles  of  the  meeting  were  observed.  No 
organization  of  it  had  taken  place.  The  act  was  done  by  force 
of  a  disorderly  and  promiscuous  assemblage  of  Friends,  against 


99 

established  usage  and  acknowledged  rules  of  proceeding,  and 
which  numbers  cannot  justify  or  legalize.  Was  the  meeting 
to  be  broken  up  by  this  proceeding  ?  We  think  not.  This  would 
be  virtually  giving  countenance  and  effect  to  acts  of  tumult  and 
violence,  over  order  and  law.  The  clerk  and  those  members 
of  the  meeting  who  desired  peaceably  to  assemble,  and  transact 
its  business  according  to  established  rules  and  usage,  were  right 
in  withdrawing  and  organizing  for  that  purpose.  Could  there 
be  a  doubt  of  the  propriety  or  legality  of  this  course,  if  the  or- 
ganization of  the  meeting  at  the  place  appointed  had  been  pre- 
vented by  an  assemblage  of  persons  other  than  the  Friends  ? 
And  what  difference  in  good  sense,  or  in  judgment  of  law,  can 
there  be  whether  the  act  of  force  and  lawlessness  was  commit- 
ted by  Friends  or  strangers  ?  In  this  respect  one  had  as  much 
right  as  the  other,  or  to  speak  more  accurately,  neither  could 
claim  any  right  or  authority  thus  to  act  or  interfere. 

But  it  is  said  that  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  monthly 
meeting  did  not  attend  at  the  place  where  the  clerk  opened  the 
meeting.  Neither  does  it  appear  that  a  majority  attended  at  the 
place  where  the  Friends  first  assembled,  and  so  far  as  this  ob- 
jection goes,  it  is  equally  applicable  to  both  the  meetings,  and 
if  sound,  neither  meeting  was  legitimate.  The  true  answer 
however  to  the  objection,  if  applicable  at  all  to  meetings  of 
Friends,  as  .they  do  not  decide  questions  by  vote,  is,  that  the 
appearance  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  monthly  meet- 
ing is  not  essential,  legally  to  constitute  it.  The  rule  of  the 
common  law  is,  where  a  society  or  corporation  is  composed 
of  a  indefinite  number  of  persons,  a  majority  of  those  who  ap- 
pear at  a  regular  meeting  of  the  same,  constitute  a  body  com- 
petent to  transact  business.  Rex  vs.  Mayor  of  Portsmouth, 
Cowp.  240.  Rex  vs.  Bellinger,  4  F.  R.  822.  3  Ep.  Wilcox,  7. 
Cown.  400 — 10.  (Note.)  There  is  nothing  in  the  case  to  show 
that  any  particular  or  specified  number  of  the  Friends  are  ne- 
cessary to  constitute  a  regular  monthly  meeting,  and  the  rule  of 
the  common  law  therefore  applies. 

I  have  not  deemed  it  important  to  examine  at  large  the  objec- 
tion to  the  recovery,  on  the  ground  that  the  defendant  is  a  part- 
ner in  the  fund,  and  that  no  suit  at  law  can  be  sustained  against 
him,  and  that  as  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting  is  not  a  cor- 
porate body,  the  suit  should  be  in  the  names  of  all  the  parties 
interested.  I  consider  this  objection  wholly  unfounded.  Though 
the  defendant  has  a  right  to  participate  in  the  benefits  derived 
from  the  use  of  the  fund,  he  has  no  right  or  claim  to  the  control 
of  it,  except  according  to  the  usage  and  custom  of  the  Purchase 
preparative  meeting  of  the  Friends,  under  whom  the  fund  was 
placed,  as  a  member  of  that  meeting.     It  is  this  meeting  that 


100 

has  by  the  consent  of  the  owners  of  the  fund,  of  which  the 
defendant  is  one,  the  exclusive  management  of  it.  They  have 
placed  it  in  the  hands  of  the  treasurer,  who  has  the  immediate 
control  of  it.  He  loaned  it  to  the  defendant,  who  engaged  under 
hand  and  seal  to  pay  it  to  him,  (the  then  treasurer,)  or  his  suc- 
cessor in  office.  So  far  as  the  rights  of  the  parties  are  con- 
cerned, upon  the  evidence  in  the  case  in  connexion  with  the 
fund,  the  defendant  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  stranger  to 
it.  He  has  no  right  to  possess  himself  of  it,  or  control  it,  any 
more  than  a  stranger,  and  cannot  in  this  respect  be  deemed  a 
partner.  This  view  is  also  applicable  to  every  other  individual 
member  of  the  Purchase  preparative  meeting. 
New  trial  granted.     Costs  to  abide  the  event. 


UCSB    LIBRARY 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  616  936     1 


w 


■{"-^ 


